Natural Selection: A Scarecrow in a Cucumber Patch
A cordial conversation exposing scientific shortcomings of the theory of evolution. By Roddy Bullock
Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber patch, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good." –Jeremiah 10:5
The following account illustrates how evolutionists and creationists can agree on statements that must be true if evolution is true but disagree regarding the scientific basis for those statements. Enjoy!
I was wrong.
It’s hard to admit that. I knew I was right. Which is what every wrong person thinks.
Of course, I asked for it.
Ever since 2022, when I first introduced Creation Reformation’s pithy critique of evolution, what we call The Natural Selection Paradox, I’ve suspected I might be blind to a vulnerability to its logical validity. Because if true, The Natural Selection Paradox effectively kills evolution as an explanation for current life by neutralizing evolution’s secret sauce: natural selection. That’s why many posts, videos, and papers I published included an invitation to offer objections, rebuttals, and critique of The Natural Selection Paradox.
Over the last three years I have regularly defended The Natural Selection Paradox against contrary opinions and alleged flaws. Most of the opposition came in the form of knee-jerk reactions that amounted to (sometimes verbatim) “you are stupid, and God does not exist.”
However, among the hundreds of attempts to debunk The Natural Selection Paradox, I sometimes received an excellent critique from a well-informed evolutionist. When this happened, it challenged me to think differently and to further hone the wording of, and my defense of, The Natural Selection Paradox.
These thought-stretching and view-challenging interactions highlight a phrase I recently heard: Trying to be right is very hard, but you can definitely know what’s wrong. Trying to concisely and precisely express a truth proposition to destroy evolution-as-explanation-for-current-life is very hard. But even if flawed, it can reveal definitely what is wrong about evolution (as an explanation for current living things).
And flaws can be fixed, as I will show in this post.
“Trying to be right is very hard, but you can definitely know what’s wrong.”
– Alex Karp, Palantir CEO
My best interaction to date came in response to a recent YouTube video entitled, Dropping the Bomb on Evolution (since then revised, revised version here). In this video I explained The Natural Selection Paradox using the common analogy of a filter to show that natural selection “played no role” in making all “current living things.” One viewer accepted my invitation to point out any errors in facts, logic or reasoning.
And the result? This person did, in fact, patiently and carefully surface a flaw in The Natural Selection Paradox as worded. Such a reckoning, when faced honestly, leads to a bit of an intellectual crisis, some soul searching, and the general sense of what to do now?
But further Socratic-style questioning of this person, whom I will call “Tom,” revealed The Natural Selection Paradox’s unchanged, and lethal-to-evolution, implications. That is, despite the flaw in the current wording, from our exchange of views a new Natural Selection Paradox evolved. And the new is more powerful than the old in its theory-destroying implications for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
At least, that’s the way I see it.
Tom? Not so much. He sees no problem with the wording of the new Natural Selection Paradox. For Tom, the scientific support for the new Natural Selection Paradox is self-evident from observations in nature, and the new Natural Selection Paradox is neither controversial nor a paradox.
We will work our way to the new Natural Selection Paradox by examining ten propositional statements that both Tom and I agreed must be true if evolution is a true story of the origin of all current life forms. Let me reiterate the importance of that last phrase: any reference in our email exchange to a statement being “true” or “valid” is understood as meaning “must be true if evolution is a true story of the origin of all current life forms.”
As indicated by the sheer number of our emails, copied and numbered below, it took many back-and-forth exchanges to reach our agreement on these statements. But as we systematically worked through many truth propositions, the new Natural Selection Paradox emerged out of the ashes! I will reveal it and discuss it below.
But equally as important as discovering a new, refined, and more precisely lethal-to-evolution Natural Selection Paradox, our interaction surfaced our differences in how we scientifically evaluate evolutionary theory’s truth propositions. Our interaction, therefore, serves as a fascinating opportunity to understand why evolutionists and creationists disagree.
Spoiler: evolutionists and creationists don’t disagree because of the facts and evidence; we all possess the same facts and evidence.
As we move toward Statement 10, we will see that, although Tom and I agree the statements are true (if evolution is a true explanation…etc.), we differ greatly on how and whether the statements are scientifically supported and justified. Enjoy!
Statement 1: The filter analogy (utilized in the subject video) is accurate and illustrates how natural selection works. – Email Nos. 4 and 5.
Just as a filter plays no role in explaining the origin or existence of the filtrate that passes through it, natural selection plays no role in the production of, the adaptation of, or modification to any organisms that “pass through” it.
We started with this truth statement because it is often not realized among evolutionists. But, in fact, organisms that exist in a population before the “filter” of natural selection continue to exist, unchanged, after the filter of natural selection.
All a filter does is eliminate some things, but lets other things (the filtrate) pass through, unchanged.
Tom and I both agreed that this statement can be supported scientifically, based upon observations and natural laws of nature.
Statement 2: Every current living thing today can trace its evolutionary lineage in an unbroken chain of ancestry to the first living thing on earth (or some very primitive organism). – Email Nos. 6 and 7.
If evolutionary theory is true, then for every current living thing, a unique “solid line” of un-interrupted ancestral lineage connects each current living thing to the first living thing. This solid line ancestry is often depicted in phylogenetic trees produced by evolutionists.
Although most evolutionists agree with the idea expressed by phylogenetic trees, these diagrams explicitly show that only one kind of evolutionary change explains the unbroken ancestry of every current living thing from a first life form: change to genotypes and phenotypes from parent to child offspring.
Tom and I both agreed that this statement must be true if evolution is true. This fact will become important in the new Natural Selection Paradox.
Statement 3: Every ancestor of every current living thing made it through the filter of natural selection unchanged. –Email Nos. 8-16.
Every ancestor organism in the unbroken chain of ancestors between first life and every current life form lived, survived, and reproduced untouched and unchanged by natural selection. By “untouched” is meant that natural selection did nothing to effect or affect any change to the organisms that survived it.
Each survivor was born, lived, and reproduced completely unaffected by natural selection eliminating other organisms. As such, natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor of any current living thing, during its lifetime.
Tom and I both agreed that this statement must be true if evolution is true. Tom started to get a bit wary here, suggesting that this statement is true if it is understood that natural selection played an indirect role in explaining any organism’s existence in the first place.
At this point in our back-and-forth we veered into areas of disagreement, but by Email No. 26 I thought the time was right to introduce for discussion a version of the existing Natural Selection Paradox: “Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change of any ancestor organism of any current living thing.” And starting with Email No. 27 and going through Email No. 46 Tom deftly revealed a flaw in the Natural Selection Paradox.
Starting with Email No. 27 and going through Email No. 46 Tom deftly revealed a flaw in the Natural Selection Paradox.
Specifically, Tom convinced me that the phrase “played no role” (or “did nothing” in some versions) was not completely accurate. In fact, natural selection played an indirect role in the evolutionary change leading to all current living things. This indirect role involved the elimination of certain organisms in a population, thus changing the environment such that the surviving organisms in the population would reproduce differently, putting the kind of future offspring in question. In other words, natural selection played “a role” in determining the genotypes of any ancestor of “all current living things” by decreasing the potential genes in the gene pool producing these ancestors with each generation.
The Natural Selection Paradox, it appeared, suffered the fate of many other statements made in this field: it was 90% right, but 100% wrong.
After some introspection and self-doubting reflection, however, I realized that, despite Tom’s valid objection, the inevitable implications of The Natural Selection Paradox nevertheless could be salvaged.
With a newly worded Natural Selection Paradox forming in my mind, I began a new line of Socratic-style questions with Tom, and we agreed on the validity of the following statements, the last three of which represent candidates for the new Natural Selection Paradox!
Statement 4: With or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form. – Email Nos. 47-48.
Many evolutionists may find this statement surprising. But this statement arises logically from Statements 1-3 above. It follows directly from understanding that natural selection imparts no change to surviving and reproducing organisms. And yet only survivors populate the unbroken chain of ancestral lineage from first life to every current life form.
Thus, if evolution is a true explanation for every current living thing, continuous change to genotypes and phenotypes alone explains the unbroken chain of ancestry linking every current living thing to a first life form. And natural selection played no role in this process.
I expressed my view that this Statement 4 is “scientifically untenable.” There is no scientific reason to believe that (with or without natural selection) current life forms can be explained solely as the result of cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form.
Tom stated, “So long as this statement is understood in a way that's compatible with natural selection being indirectly involved in which genetic changes occur (as the examples in my previous email [Email No. 47] illustrate), it seems true.” And then he added, “I don't know why it should seem untenable”
Tom expressed surprise that I would find Statement 4 scientifically untenable. He stated, “I'm not taking it to say much more than ‘unguided mechanisms like mutation are responsible for generating the chain of genetic sequences that have led up to the diversity of life today’, which is straightforwardly true. What's untenable about this?”
Tom, of course, is expressing the only response an evolutionist can. If one chooses to believe that evolution is true, then Statement 4 must be “straightforwardly true.” There is no other option.
But at this point I realized that we are revealing some fundamental differences in what we consider “scientifically tenable” explanations for what must be true if evolution is a true explanation for all current life forms.
I would hope most people, like me, suspect and understand at a gut level that cumulative, random copying errors to a first, intact code would do nothing but almost immediately ruin any future code sequences, turning them quickly into mashes of disordered gibberish.
And, with respect, I suspect that Tom insists on towing the evolutionist line not because such random evolution of current life is scientifically tenable, but because it must be tenable. Somehow.
The theory of evolution by natural selection must explain scientifically dubious outcomes. And, as is apparent from reading Tom’s many responses, part of his certainty derives from his confidence that natural selection (despite his agreement that Statement 4 is true) somehow makes a difference in nature to explain the unexplainable.
In response to Tom’s question “what’s untenable about this?” and starting at Email No. 50 we engaged in a string of emails that, frankly, I found a bit frustrating as we discussed what should be clarifying ideas around “order” and “disorder” in coded genetic instructions. It seems that evolutionists, knowing the plain meaning of “order,” and “disorder” in any other context, become linguistic acrobats in the context of evolution where millions of serial, cumulative, random events must produce, not disorder, but new and different order from old.
But I very much appreciate Tom’s views at this point in our exchange. So, keeping my eye on the ball, at Email No. 70 I tried reframing the question in terms of expectations. In other words, my inquiry moves from what “could” happen to what Tom would “expect” to happen. Note that this statement is in the form of a question. And, as things go, preciseness drives wordiness.
Statement 5: As an objective scientific matter, with or without a selection process, would you expect the introduction of repeated, random changes to an otherwise intact and working sequence of code elements that function for a purpose to alter the code over time into a very different intact, working sequence of code elements that function for new and different purposes with additional or improved functions? – Email Nos. 70-73.
In what should make any rational person do a double take, Tom said he would expect repeated, random changes to a working sequence of functional code elements to result in very different sequences of functional code elements with improved functions. And, he would expect such an outcome without natural selection!
But again, I recognize that this is the only answer Tom can offer if he believes evolution is true as the explanation for all current living things. My question is, why?
Tom goes on to affirm his expectation, even in the absence of natural selection. You can read his reasoning and affirmation of his expectation at Email Nos. 71 and 73. In my view, the “reason” for his expectation is nothing more than a fairly general description of what could happen with “changes” to functional code elements with notions of “best odds” that “promote more frequent reproduction,” etc.
Gambling casinos are built on Tom’s premises. Gamblers succumb to believing the promise of greater wealth from existing wealth based upon what could happen with changes to repetitive dice rolls, with the dice rolls having the best odds promoting more frequent reproduction of wealth. Of course, those most convinced do not remain gamblers for long.
But I did not argue with Tom, because my intention is not to convince Tom, but to understand his reasoning. Because it seems to me that his “expectation” is not based on any scientific principle or natural law, but the demands of the theory of evolution alone, I decided to attempt another line of questions.
Knowing that evolutionists fail to see the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an obstacle to their theory, I nevertheless realized that appealing to it as an example of an applicable scientific law of nature might be the only way to ferret out any scientific principle or natural law in support of Tom’s expectation.
Brief primer: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in many confusing forms, often differing depending on the particular discipline of science to which it applies. However, in very general terms, the 2nd Law states that in closed systems, like our solar system, in the absence of an ordering principle operating, things in that system will tend toward disorder (increased entropy). The 2nd Law explains, for example, why leaves decay, why metal rusts, and why rock walls crumble. I am seeking from Tom an example of an ordering principle in nature that could make Statement 5 believable. By analogy, I’m asking what, in the theory of evolution, could explain the equivalent of decayed leaves turning green and healthy, rusty metal becoming shiny and smooth, and crumbled walls becoming tall and straight.
Without citing the 2nd Law explicitly (but knowing Tom would understand exactly the intent) in Email Nos. 75, 77 and 79 I forged ahead crafting more statements that must be true if evolution is a true explanation for all living things, each aimed at surfacing some ordering principle to render evolutionary theory scientifically tenable.
Statement 6: The relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype is the result solely of repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order). – Email No. 79.
Tom replied: “Natural selection plays a role in what genotypes appear and which ones spread and persist and change in the future. It doesn't play a direct role in generating them, but it is indirectly involved in this. So, if by 'solely' you mean to exclude natural selection from playing any role, I disagree. If instead you merely mean it isn't directly generating them, then I agree.”
Tom’s reliance on natural selection is unshakeable, even though “direct” generation of new genotypes is the only change that matters and the only process that makes evolution remotely interesting. So, I responded by picking up on his term “generating” as I’m trying to find any hook to force Tom to reveal a scientific principle or law to explain what we agreed is a true statement.
I suggested, for example, that if evolution has any value as an explanation for current living things it must explain how they were "generated." Darwin's book could equally be titled On the Generation of Species.
With Tom’s insight in mind, I posed the same statement again, slightly altered to focus on “generated.”
Statement 7: The relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype was generated solely by repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order). – Email No. 81.
Tom replied: “This statement is mostly fine, though I'd quibble about the 'random' label. Mutations are deterministic rather than truly random. Plus, greater complexity can arise by mixing genes, such as through sexual reproduction, which isn't random. If 'random' is replaced with 'unguided', I think it'd be fine.”
I kept the word random for reasons explained in Email No. 83. I did not push back on Tom’s reasons for believing this is a true statement. Whether “random” or “unguided,” this statement seems so utterly in violation of the 2nd Law that it is hardly worth discussing. I’m aware of the 2nd Law’s open system/closed system distinction, and the idea of the sun being in our system, supplying energy, etc. etc. But for reasons easily explained at another time, the sun does not address, much less provide, a mechanism to reverse the scientifically expected increase in genetic entropy introduced by random, unguided mutations.
At Email No. 83, I bid Tom goodbye. I took some time to think deeply about our conversation and tried to salvage The Natural Selection Paradox.
Sometime later I came back (Email No. 85) to bounce some ideas off Tom. Specifically, I posed the following two statements, the second simply expanding on the first. Statement 8 is, for now, the new Natural Selection Paradox!
Statement 8: Despite natural selection’s role in nature, every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change.
Statement 9: Despite natural selection’s role in nature, every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by random evolutionary change, because each current life form occupies the end of an unbroken chain of cumulative random genetic changes to the original genetic code in the first life form.
Tom replied at Email No. 86: “Glad to hear from you! The statements look fine to me, so long as they are understood as consistent with natural selection playing an indirect role in making certain genetic sequences emerge, not merely eliminating genetic sequences. Given this, it looks to me that there's no paradox. The statements amount to saying nothing more than that, although natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism, it isn't one that itself generates new genes, and you can form an unbroken chain for all life leading back to the first organism, each genetic change being the result of natural processes like mutation. There's nothing controversial there, and there's nothing that is paradoxical for evolutionary theory.”
I replied: “I appreciate your thoughts! The statements are indeed consistent with natural selection playing an indirect role. But the indirect role does not change the "controversial" nature of the statements. Taking the first statement, it is equally true without the nod to natural selection, as shown in Statement 10.
Statement 10: "Every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change."
I continued: “In my view that statement [Statement 10] should be very controversial. That statement cannot be defended scientifically.”
The reader should read Statement 10 carefully. Statement 10, if true, is true regardless of any supposed direct or indirect effect of natural selection. Imagine how the topic of evolution would be treated if everyone understood the necessary truth of Statement 10. In my view, Statement 10 renders the theory of evolution completely dead as an explanation for all current life forms from a first life form.
Scientifically, the theory of evolution must drop the natural selection head fake and go by the accurately descriptive name of “the theory of evolution by random change alone.”
But nobody would buy this.
Or would they?
I finished with this: “Thoughts? Specifically, if you would, tell me what is your scientific reason to believe that the statement above can be true? … (Maybe give me an example in a different real-world context in nature where cumulative random change produced increased functional complexity.)”
Tom starts his reply at Email No. 88 by saying, “We know it’s true, since…”
Suffice it to say that Tom’s reason for knowing the truth of Statements 8-10 failed to convince me. His reason to know rests on “observations” of occasional “adaptations” in organisms. Which is fair, but “observations” do not rise to the level of scientific law or principle. As I pointed out, bare observations have in the past mislead scientists. Long ago, observing the motion of the sun produced equally valid theories as to what is orbiting what; it looks the same either way. But once the scientific laws of gravity and motion were learned and applied, only one of the sun/earth observations survived as scientifically tenable.
The rest of Tom’s reasons were completely devoid of a scientific principle or law. He appealed to “fossil evidence” and “genetic evidence” arranged per the theory of evolution’s requirements. Note that this kind of “knowledge” works both ways. A creationist can say he “knows” God created because of the fossil evidence (sudden appearance, ordering in layers differing from evolutionary progression, Burgess Shale suggesting sudden flood event, etc.) and genetic evidence (inescapable evidence of design) when viewed according to the Bible’s creation story. To think that fossil and genetic evidence supports only evolutionary theory is one of the great conceits to which most evolutionists succumb.
But more troubling to me than Tom’s reliance on observations force-fitted into the theory was Tom’s assertion that, “Further, there's no known mechanism that would prevent these changes from happening in this way.”
Could Tom find a “known mechanism” that would prevent cumulative random edits to the Rosetta Stone turning into every book in the Library of Congress? I suspect he could.
Finally, in addition to Tom’s reliance of force-fitted observations and his inability to comprehend a “known mechanism” to prevent massive numbers of massively ordered code being generated randomly, his last sentence to me revealed the unbridgeable gulf between us in how we think scientifically.
In Email No. 96, Tom provided his gulf-exposing answer to my request for a scientific principle to support the idea behind Statement 10, namely that disorder/less functional complexity can randomly change into more order/more functional complexity. Referencing “the natural laws of natural selection” Tom flatly asserted, “Decreases in entropy thus become inevitable given enough time and individuals experiencing mutations.”
“Decreases in entropy thus become inevitable given enough time and individuals experiencing mutations.” — Tom
In view of Statement 10, Tom is implying that based on observations of occasional “good” mutations (and being unable to resist sneaking in his Ace of the indirect role of natural selection) it is not merely possible that cumulative random changes alone explain all current living things, it is inevitable that every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random genetic change."
I leave you, the reader, to contemplate our final back-and-forth exchanges in Email Nos. 88-97 as I continued to press Tom for any “scientific principle” in support of the idea of Statement 10.
And I will leave it to you to decide if Tom’s reasons to believe the truth of Statements 8-10 rise to the level of “scientific tenability.”
It seems to me that Tom believes that every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change because somehow natural selection invisibly springs this scientific impossibility into the realm of the possible. Somehow, Tom believes, natural selection indirectly acts to render the scientifically untenable not only tenable, but inevitable!
I appreciate honest evolutionists like Tom. But to maintain a belief in evolution while acknowledging any of Statements 8-10 as true, one must believe natural selection plays an indirect role indistinguishable from magic. Because there are no scientific principles (e.g., law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, Newtonian laws of motion, etc.) commending natural selection’s purported ability to explain how repeated random changes to a first intact, functional ordered code inevitably generated tens of thousands of new intact, functional ordered codes. And there are natural laws that must be violated to do so, which is to say only belief in miracles could render Statements 8-10 believable.
In this sense, natural selection has evolved to the status of an idol like those spoken of by Jeremiah: standing like a scarecrow in the cucumber patch of life.
Imagine two cucumber patches, one with a scarecrow and one without. All the cucumbers in both patches evolve from seed to crop by an identical process. This process accounts for the only necessary change to produce cucumbers from seed. And the growth process proceeds equally in both cucumber patches. Importantly, cucumbers grow in the cucumber patch with the scarecrow, not because of the scarecrow, but despite the scarecrow.
Does the scarecrow play a meaningful role unrelated to the only necessary change required for the evolution of seed to crop? Probably; it likely serves to increase the numbers of surviving cucumbers in its patch. But as the scarecrow-less patch shows, the scarecrow cannot be invoked as the cause of the cucumbers that grow around it. To sell the scarecrow as the cause, or even the indirect cause, of seed-to-crop evolution of a cucumber is to peddle an idol to the vulnerable in search of a talisman.
Like Jeremiah’s idols, natural selection cannot “speak” to an explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and must be “carried” by assumption, for it cannot “walk” on scientific principles. And yet believers convinced of natural selection’s miraculous powers cannot be dissuaded.
Ironically, by relying on the idea of natural selection to justify a faith equivalent to believing that with enough time water can naturally run uphill and castles can naturally materialize from the rubble of stone walls, evolutionists betray their idea as an idol, complete with a wishful reliance on miracles to override natural laws.
We would do well to heed Jeremiah’s advice regarding those who harbor such idols as part of their creation story. Although Jeremiah distinguishes the God who created the “heavens and the earth” the principle applies to all of God’s work:
You are to say this to them: “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under these heavens.”
He made the earth by his power,
established the world by his wisdom,
and spread out the heavens by his understanding.
Is natural selection god-like in its ability to make an unbelievable creation story miraculously believable? Those who find this notion compelling ironically must believe by faith in an otherwise unbelievable creation story. And without knowledge, they will likely do so until they along with their idol, perish from the earth.
Or might there exist a true God who miraculously acted in a way that some assert gave us an equally unbelievable creation story? We who find creation by God, including humans in His image, compelling also believe by faith in that unbelievable creation story. And we also will likely do so until we perish from the earth.
Everyone must choose wisely. After all, everyone believes something unbelievable.
And we all must perish from the earth.
And we will all end up creationists in the end.
Thank you for your patience reading all this. Please SHARE if you have any evolutionist friends who would like to poke holes in the new Natural Selection Paradox!
(C) 2025 Creation Reformation. Roddy Bullock is the founder of Creation Reformation and author of several books related to creation and evolution. For more information, visit www.creationreformation.com, or visit (and follow!) us at Facebook.
Please send editorial comments, including indications of typos and grammatical errors to info@creationreformation.com. If you want to know why there are typos, see my post On the Origin of Pieces by Means of Natural Correction. Enjoy!
Email transcript:
[1] From “Tom”:
Hi! I just watched your recent video 'Dropping the Bomb on Evolution' where you propose an alleged natural selection paradox. I appreciate you have at least some understanding of evolution (ex. you recognize multiple mechanisms for it, including ones that aren't frequently discussed). However, your video is nonetheless making a few basic mistakes.
The biggest issue with your video is you're treating it as a challenge to evolutionary theory that natural selection does not itself introduce traits. Rather than challenging the theory, this is an incredibly basic component of the theory. It's so basic that it's frequently mentioned in introductory materials on evolution. An example: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/mechanisms-of-change/ "All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes and other genetic elements in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift can only change the frequency of different genes and genetic elements (e.g., making wide beaks or green beetles more or less common); they cannot introduce fundamentally new traits to a population." Natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism, in that it helps explain which traits persist and which ones do not, but it's not what creates new traits in the first place. That fact isn't a challenge to the theory, it is the theory.
Additionally, the claim that if natural selection was removed, we'd end up with all the same life that presently exists in addition to all the organisms that went extinct in the real world is false. There are a lot of reasons for this. One is that the results of evolution are highly contingent. A small change early on would result in dramatically big changes millions of years in the future. Removing natural selection from the equation would create dramatically different behaviors and would necessitate altering the environment organisms are living in (to remove anything that might select against them). These changes would ensure that the mutations that happen early on are not identical to the mutations that happened in the real world. Evolution would therefore carry on a different course than what happened in the real world.
Again, I appreciate you put some effort into understanding evolution. That's necessary to make a good criticism of it. It's just that this one doesn't work at all. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, insofar as it explains why some traits have spread so widely while others have not or even vanished. There is no paradox here.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Best,
-Tom
[2] From Roddy Bullock:
Hello Tom,
Roddy Bullock here. Thank you for your email and thank you for watching our video.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments on our video, and I will get back to you within the next three days with some thoughts of my own.
Thank you again,
Roddy Bullock
Creation Reformation
[3] Tom:
Hi Roddy, Thanks, looking forward to it! -Tom
[4] Roddy:
Hello Tom,
Once again, I really appreciate your email. At Creation Reformation we are always seeking rebuttals to The Natural Selection Paradox to determine if we are correct or not. We genuinely want to be shown we are wrong!
Before I respond to the details in your email, I want to do some "range finding" to see where our areas of agreement are. I like to do this by asking questions and letting you answer.
First, we used the filter analogy to illustrate how natural selection works. My question to you is: Do you agree that the filter analogy is accurate, and illustrates how natural selection works?
If you do not agree, can you provide one example of natural selection in which the filter analogy fails?
Please answer this question (and possibly, the follow up question) in your next email.
Thank you!
Roddy Bullock
[5] Tom:
Hi Roddy, There's no issue with analogizing natural selection to a filter. There's multiple mechanisms of evolution, some that introduce new genetic variation. Natural selection is a mechanism that decreases the frequency of some pre-existing genes and increases the frequency of others. Natural selection can prevent some organisms from reproducing, and by culling some organisms, that can make it easier for other organisms to thrive, allowing them to spread better.
-Tom
[6] Roddy:
Hi Tom, Thank you. The filter analogy is a good analogy. Darwin, for example, accurately describe natural selection as a filter: "This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations I call Natural Selection.” – Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), 81.
Next question: Do you agree with my statement in the video that every current living thing today can trace its evolutionary lineage in an unbroken chain of ancestry to the first living thing on earth (or some very primitive organism, such as a sea sponge)?
Recall we used a typical phylogenetic tree to illustrate this truth of evolution.
If you do not agree with that statement, please explain why, and provide an example of how a current living thing came to be another way.
Thank you again!
Roddy
[7] Tom:
Hi Roddy, This is also true, for every creature on earth, there's a chain of ancestors leading back to the very first organism. As far as we're currently aware, there's only one tree of life on earth.
-Tom
[8] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. I agree, if evolutionary theory is true, then every current living thing can trace its evolutionary lineage back in an unbroken chain of ancestors back to the first living thing.
Next question: Do you agree with this statement: Every ancestor of every current living thing made it through the filter of natural selection unchanged (was "preserved" as-is to survive and reproduce, in Darwin's terms). That is, each ancestor was the same genotype and phenotype after the filter of natural selection as it was before.
If you do not agree, please explain why. Specifically, explain how an ancestor of any current living thing either (1) did not make it through the filter of natural selection (was "rejected" before surviving or reproducing, in Darwin's terms), or (2) had its genotype/phenotype changed/modified/adapted/etc. when/by going through the filter of natural selection.
Thank you!
Roddy
[9] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
The framing of the question is a bit odd. If you're asking if not dying before you can successfully reproduce changes your genotype/phenotype, the answer is no, it does not. I'm not sure what else you could mean by the question. Did I follow what you meant correctly?
-Tom
[10] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
No, you are not following. I will simplify the question a bit, and we can take it in two steps.
Next question: Do you agree with this statement: Every ancestor of every current living thing made it through the filter of natural selection unchanged. If you do not agree, please explain why.
Thank you!
Roddy
[11] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
This again looks like you're asking if not dying before you can successfully reproduce changes your genotype/phenotype. The answer to this is once again 'no'. I don't think there's another way of reading your question. 'Getting through the filter of natural selection' just means not dying before you can successfully reproduce.
-Tom
[12] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I am not asking about dying before reproducing. I am making a statement and asking if you agree or not. With your understanding of what "making it through the filter" means, do you agree or disagree with this statement:
"Every ancestor of every current living thing made it through the filter of natural selection unchanged."
If you disagree, please explain why.
Thanks!
Roddy
[13] Tom:
Hi Roddy, By referring to the filter, you are talking about dying and reproducing, so the answer is once again 'no'.
-Tom
[14] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
By "no" are you saying you disagree with my statement?
If you disagree with my statement, please explain why. Specifically, explain how any ancestor of any current living thing (1) did not make it through the filter, or (2) made it through changed in some way.
Thank you,
Roddy
[15] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Yeah, that wasn't clear on my part. It's agreeing with the above statement. It's disagreeing with "not dying before you can successfully reproduce changes your genotype/phenotype".
-Tom
[16] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. It is true that every ancestor of every current living thing made it through the filter of natural selection unchanged.
Next, do you agree with this statement: "Every ancestor of every current living thing arrived on earth with a phenotype fit and adapted to survive to reproduce in its environment."
If you do not agree, please explain.
Thank you!
Roddy
[17] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Whether something is fit for its environment is more of a continuum, so the phrasing of this question is also a bit odd. There isn't 'fit' and 'unfit'. There's more or less fit for an environment. But treating the statement charitably, I don't mind agreeing to it.
-Tom
[18] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, and I don’t disagree with the continuum idea. But ultimately it is a fact of evolutionary theory that organisms are either fit to survive and reproduce or not, and their fitness derives solely from the genotype/phenotype they were born with.
The next statement is an extension of the last one. Do you agree with this statement:
“Every ancestor of every current living thing arrived on earth with a phenotype fit and adapted to survive to reproduce in its environment, and did survive and reproduce, not because of natural selection but despite natural selection removing other, unfit organisms.”
If you do not agree with, explain why.
Thank you again!
Roddy
[19] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I disagree with this one. Imagine a super simplified case involving two organisms. A and B are competing for very limited resources, so they can't both survive. However, say that a predator kills A. This now allows B to survive. Because natural selection acted on A, B was able to survive and reproduce.
Best,
-Tom
[20] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, this is a good response. And it may be the best response to my inquiry in view of the direction I am headed.
Based on your scenario of organisms A and B, would you agree with the following statement:
“Organism B experienced no change to its genotype or phenotype when natural selection removed organism A, allowing organism B to survive and reproduce.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Thank you!
Roddy
[21] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
That is correct. In this scenario, natural selection is adjusting the frequency of pre-existent genotypes/phenotypes in the population. The predation of A doesn't change B's genotype/phenotype.
-Tom
[22] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, again. It is a truth of evolutionary theory that natural selection produces no change to any genotype or phenotype of any organism at any time.
With that truth agreed to, and with the distinction between changes to organisms versus changes to populations that I made in the video, do you agree with the following statement:
“Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change of any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
If you disagree, please explain.
Thanks!
Roddy
[23] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I disagree with this statement. Natural selection does not itself generate new traits, but it does play a role in what changes end up happening. Return to the example with A and B. Because A was selected against, B was able to reproduce, creating C. Any evolutionary changes in C would never have happened if natural selection did not select against A. So, natural selection played a role in the evolutionary change of C.
-Tom
[24] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, fair enough. Let me change my statement slightly and see if it changes your response any. The statement below is identical to my previous statement with the change from the word “of” to “to”.
Do you agree with this statement:
“Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
If you disagree, please explain what evolutionary change natural selection imparts to any ancestor organism.
Thanks!
Roddy
[25] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I don't think switching from 'of' to 'to' changes my answer, I don't think it changes the statement enough. If you're trying to capture the idea that "Natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism", I think this is true. But it's also true that natural selection indirectly impacts what genetic changes will end up happening, at the very least because it directly influences which organisms will be able to reproduce, and thus which mutations have a chance to happen. Instead of saying natural selection plays no role in any evolutionary change, I'm happy if you just change it to saying that natural selection does not itself generate any new genes.
-Tom
[26] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. You have correctly characterized my statement as in effect saying “Natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism.” I am not trying to capture that idea, I’m stating that idea, explicitly and clearly.
Thus, I repeat the statement that we both agree is true:
“Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
This statement is (or is equivalent to) The Natural Selection Paradox, that I started my video with and defended throughout the video. You have indicated your agreement that this statement is true.
I’m not trying to trap you, and this is not a gotcha question. And I will allow you to retract any previous agreement with any previous statement I made.
Do you agree that The Natural Selection Paradox is a true statement?
If you do not agree, please explain why.
Thank you!
Roddy
[27] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I don't agree those are equivalent statements. It's true to say that natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism. It's false to say that natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing, since natural selection influenced which mutations had a chance to happen. That's a role it's playing. If natural selection had selected differently, very different evolutionary changes would have happened. If all you mean to say is "natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism", this isn't a paradox. It's just a mundane expression of the role of natural selection. It's an evolutionary mechanism, since it is a major explanation for the proliferation of certain genes and the elimination of others. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies over time in a population. Imagine you have a population that experiences no mutations. Some traits in the population are promoted by natural selection, others are selected against. Over time, the beneficial traits reach fixation in the population. Even though this scenario doesn't involve any mutations, it is evolution, since it's a change in frequency of alleles in the population. This was the primary criticism I made at the very beginning. What you're alleging is a paradox is really just a consistent part of the theory.
-Tom
[28] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
In fact, they are equivalent statements. The equivalency is shown by answering what I called the “diagnostic question” in the video: “If evolutionary processes produced organisms by genetic variation in offspring, but natural selection did not operate, how many of today’s species would exist?”
With either statement, the answer is the same: “all of them.” If you disagree, please explain why.
As you consider your answer, keep in mind that your statement, “It's false to say that natural selection played
no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any
current living thing, since natural selection influenced which
mutations had a chance to happen” is not true. The mutations happen before natural selection operates. The only thing natural selection “influences” is what mutations do not continue in existence. The survivors’ prior mutations survive unchanged for another round of mutations and natural selection and would have whether natural selection operated or not.
Importantly, the post-natural selection survivors (and potential ancestors) survive unchanged, not because of natural selection, but despite natural selection. And the cycle continues.
This brings us full circle to the filter analogy of natural selection and recognizing that natural selection does not determine what survives. It simply explains why some things do not survive. Just as in any filter, the filtrate “survives” not because of the filter, but despite the filter removing other things. The filtrate, survives unchanged, and continues “living” just as it was before the filter.
I want to give you a chance to agree or disagree (with explanation) with any of my statements above.
Thank you!
Roddy
[29] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
You say multiple things here that are incorrect:
1) "In fact, they are equivalent statements." Since one of them is false and the other is true, they cannot be equivalent statements. Your version of the statement says natural selection plays no role in any evolutionary change for any organism (keeping in mind we're talking on the level of individual organisms rather than populations here). My version of the statement does not say it plays no role in these changes, it says it does not play a specific sort of role, this being directly generating those changes. Just because natural selection does not directly generate these changes in individuals, it does not follow that it plays no role whatsoever in these evolutionary changes arising. Therefore, these can't be equivalent statements. Yours is a subtly stronger statement than mine.
2) "'If evolutionary processes produced organisms by genetic variation in offspring, but natural selection did not operate, how many of today’s species would exist?'...'all of them.'" The correct answer is none of them. To see this, imagine organisms X, Y, and Z. Suppose that, in the real world where natural selection happens, Z is selected against. X therefore can't reproduce with Z, so X reproduces with Y instead. However, in the alternate scenario where natural selection does not operate, Z isn't selected against, so X decides to breed with Z instead of with Y. Y goes on to breed with someone else as well. Because of this difference, the evolutionary changes that happened in the real world from the mating of X and Y never occur in the alternate world without natural selection, because in that world X and Y don't breed together. The issue for you is even worse than this. Consider very simple, asexually reproducing organisms from early in earth's life. Much of their behavior was a response to natural selection. Without natural selection, their behavior would be different, which impacts the causal chains leading to the mutations they experience, so the mutations they experience in the alternate world will be non-identical to the mutations that happened in the real world. And since this happens early in the history of life, this has cascading effects such that no presently living organism would exist in the alternate world without natural selection. The life that exists on earth today is life that exists contingent on natural selection happening the way it did.
3) "The mutations happen before natural selection operates." Consider the example of organisms A, B, and C again. The mutations that happen in the production of C happen after A was selected against. If A had not been selected against, those mutations would never have happened in C. Natural selection did not directly generate those mutations, but it did play an indirect role in their appearance. This is why I'm saying my version of the statement is correct and your version of the statement is false, hence they're nonequivalent.
Best,
-Tom
[30] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
As for your last email, let's take your numbered topics separately, starting with No. 1. If I understand you correctly, you believe your statement is true, and my statement is false. To review, here are the statements:
Your statement: “Natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism.”
My statement: “Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
I agree your statement is true. In support of my statement being false, you stated, "My version of the statement does not say it plays no role in these changes, it says it does not play a specific sort of role, this being directly generating those changes."
Please help me understand your reasoning. Specifically, tell me what is the "specific sort of role" that natural selection does not play. And what are "those changes" you refer to?
Thank you,
Roddy
[31] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Sure thing. So, the specific sort of role natural selection isn't playing is the role that mutation (amongst other mechanisms) does play. Natural selection does not itself adjust any organism's genome to create traits. But it can make it possible for some traits to arise and prevent others from arising by selecting which organisms survive.
This is what the case of organisms A, B, and C revealed. Natural selection isn't what directly generated the mutations that were involved in the creation of C. But natural selection did permit C to exist, because it selected against A, thereby allowing B to reproduce, thus creating C. Natural selection isn't directly generating C's mutations, but it did play a role in the evolutionary change in C, since it allowed those changes to happen by selecting against A. Analogously, say you have a friend who recommended you go on a blind date with someone who you go on to have a child with. Your friend didn't directly generate your child. But your friend did technically play an indirect role in your child's creation, since they were responsible for you going on the date which set you on a path towards having this child. Like how your friend doesn't directly generate the child but does play a role in their creation, natural selection in this scenario doesn't directly generate C's mutations, but it does play a role in the creation of those mutations.
Best,
-Tom
[32] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
To recap, I'm defending this statement (and trying to determine why you believe it is a false statement): “Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
In an attempt at showing my statement is false, you again used the example of Organisms A, B, and C. I've cut and pasted your latest (I think) example below:
Your example: Consider the example of organisms A, B, and C again. The mutations that happen in the production of C happen after A was selected against. If A had not been selected against, those mutations would never have happened in C. Natural selection did not directly generate those mutations, but it did play an indirect role in their appearance.
I'm having a hard time understanding how this example makes my statement false. In my view, B passed through the filter of natural selection unchanged, and continues producing (including producing C) without regard to the fate of A. For B and C it's as if A never existed at all.
To help me understand, I have four clarifying questions:
If natural selection did nothing in your example, would B still produce C? If not, why not?
What "role" did natural selection play with regard to B's existence and C's production that is distinguishable from "nothing"? (In an analogy, what role does a filter play in the filtrate's existence and eventual future change, that is distinguishable from nothing?)
You stated: "If A had not been selected against, those mutations would never have happened in C." Why not? Specifically, what does A's presence do to prevent C?
Are you saying, to use a real world example, that if the short-necked giraffes had never been selected against, there would be no further mutated versions of long-necked giraffes?
Thank you. I really am trying to see how you are rebutting The Natural Selection Paradox. Maybe your answers to my three questions will help.
Thank you!
Roddy
[33] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
1. If natural selection had not eliminated A, B would not have produced C, since A and B are competing for scarce resources and can't both survive long enough to reproduce. If we instead imagine the scenario with no natural selection at all (so, both A and B can live long enough to reproduce), B still would not have produced C. B's behavior would be different in an environment without natural selection, so B's instance of reproduction would not be identical as that in the real world, so any child B produces would not be C. It would be D or E or F... To illustrate, imagine a human couple who had a child, call him Bobby. Now imagine that the couple instead waited several months before having a child. Would the result be identical to the Bobby who existed in the scenario where they didn't wait? Certainly not. This would be an entirely different child with different genetics. Call her Sally. In the same way that the choice of this couple makes it so that either Bobby or Sally or someone else entirely comes into existence, the choices of B influence whether C or D or E or F will come into existence. If B is in a scenario without natural selection, they will make different choices, so C would not come into existence.
2. The role natural selection played is that it eliminated A, which permitted B to live long enough to reproduce, creating C. Eliminating A is very different from doing nothing.
3. A's presence prevents B from reproducing, since they're competing for scarce resources that are insufficient for both to survive. Therefore, if A had not been selected against, B would not have had the opportunity to reproduce, and consequently the mutations in C would not have happened.
4. I'm not saying this scenario happened specifically to giraffes, but we can imagine a similar scenario happening with giraffes. I'm going to simplify the case to giraffes of the same species. Say there's two giraffes in the desert. They find a small oasis. There isn't enough water for both of them to make it out of the desert. If they both drink from it, both will die before they get out of the desert to reproduce. However, suppose that only one giraffe made it to the oasis, because the other wasn't fast enough to escape some lions. Call the giraffe that died Giraffe A. Now only Giraffe B reaches the oasis. It is then able to survive, escape the desert, and reproduce. When it reproduces, several mutations happen, creating Giraffe C. Those mutations in Giraffe C never would have happened if natural selection had not selected against Giraffe A before Giraffe B reaches the oasis. Natural selection is not directly generating the mutations in Giraffe C, but by culling Giraffe A before they got to the oasis, it did play an indirect role in those mutations happening.
Best,
-Tom
[34] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. Below I've copied my four questions, with your answers, and my responses. It helps me to see them all in one place for purposes of discussion.
My question 1: If natural selection did nothing in your example, would B still produce C? If not, why not?
Your answer: If natural selection had not eliminated A, B would not have produced C, since A and B are competing for scarce resources and can't both survive long enough to reproduce.
My response: "Competing for scarce resources" and "can't both survive" are phrases that have meaning only if natural selection is operating. My question asks what would happen if natural selection did nothing. Per my question A and B are not competing for scarce resources. B would produce C and A might produce something else.
My question 2: What "role" did natural selection play with regard to B's existence and C's production that is distinguishable from "nothing"?
Your answer: The role natural selection played is that it eliminated A, which permitted B to live long enough to reproduce, creating C. Eliminating A is very different from doing nothing.
My response: This is the best response I think you can give. However, this answer, based on a simplified A, B, C example, ignores the facts of every true example of natural selection. Take the giraffes, for example. There were not two giraffes, A and B, and one died competing with the other for water at the oasis. In fact, lots of short-necked giraffes and lots of long-necked giraffes survived together and reproduced together until slowly the short-necked giraffes went extinct. But as the short-necked giraffes slowly went extinct, the long-necked giraffes continued to reproduce just as they had before, blissfully ignorant of, unaffected by, and unchanged by natural selection slowly eliminating the short-necked giraffes. For the long-necked giraffes the role of natural selection in their existence and continued evolutionary progression was no different than doing nothing. Their production, their existence, and their future mutations in offspring carried on as if natural selection did not exist.
My question 3: You stated: "If A had not been selected against, those mutations would never have happened in C." Why not? Specifically, what does A's presence do to prevent C?
Your answer: A's presence prevents B from reproducing, since they're competing for scarce resources that are insufficient for both to survive. Therefore, if A had not been selected against, B would not have had the opportunity to reproduce, and consequently the mutations in C would not have happened.
My response: As I mentioned above, this could be the case in a simplified A, B, C example, but to say this as a generalized characterization of natural selection goes to far. In fact, in every true example of natural selection in which competing resources are at play, both A's and B's survive and reproduce for a time. As A's are slowly selected against by starvation, the B's continue surviving and reproducing, including eventually reproducing C after the A's are gone. There is no reason to believe that the presence of A's as they disappear would/could prevent B's from mutating further, including after all the A's are gone. Importantly, the evolutionary path from B's to C happens independently of, and without regard to, the slow decline of A's happening around the increasing B's.
This idea is also true in examples of natural selection by predation. The light colored pepper moths slowly decreased in number while the dark colored peppered moths increased. Even if decreasing the light colored moths led to extinction, this process has no affect on, and plays no role in, the eventual descendants of the dark colored moths, who continue to mutate as they would have even if the light colored moths did not decrease.
This idea is also true in examples of plants selected against by drought: the surviving drought-resistant plants continue to mutate as they would have had the drought-stricken plants survived. The drought-resistant plants exist and continue to mutate as if the drought-stricken plants never existed. The role of natural selection in eliminating drought-stricken plants has the same effect on the drought-resistant plants as doing nothing.
In general, the eventual elimination of an organism by natural selection is irrelevant to the future mutations of organisms that survive, for whom the role of natural selection in their existence and continued reproduction is the same as nothing.
My question 4: Are you saying, to use a real world example, that if the short-necked giraffes had never been selected against, there would be no further mutated versions of long-necked giraffes?
Your answer: I'm not saying this scenario happened specifically to giraffes, but we can imagine a similar scenario happening with giraffes. I'm going to simplify the case to giraffes of the same species. Say there's two giraffes in the desert. . . .
My response: Your answer illustrates my points above. If your example is correct, it must apply specifically to giraffes, and every other example of natural selection. Your "simplification" to two giraffes, as I discussed above, is the fatal simplification that illustrates the shortcomings of your example that I discussed above.
I would like to get your response to my responses. So far your views have been very helpful for me to hone my own thoughts on this topic.
But I think we may be nearing the time for each of us to make a "closing argument" summarizing our position in support of or in opposition to The Natural Selection Paradox: “Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
Thank you!
Roddy
[35] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
You quote the first sentence of my response to question 1 and object that if there's competition for scarce resources such that they can't both survive, there's still natural selection. This is true. This is why the rest of my response to the first question was explaining why C would not exist even if we imagined a version of the story without natural selection. You didn't address this. C doesn't exist in a version of the story without natural selection, even though B gets to reproduce, since the child B produces will be non-identical to C.
"But as the short-necked giraffes slowly went extinct, the long-necked giraffes continued to reproduce just as they had before, blissfully ignorant of, unaffected by, and unchanged by natural selection slowly eliminating the short-necked giraffes." This isn't true. As the short-necked giraffes die out, this influences the long-neck giraffe behaviors, since they don't have to compete with them for resources as much, which will in turn impact how they're reproducing. Additionally, since the populations can reproduce together, the gradual decrease in the short-necked giraffes directly impacts how the long-necked ones are reproducing. They're mating with the short-necked ones less and less if their populations are declining. If natural selection wasn't eliminating the short-necked ones, they'd still be available to mate with, so the genetic course of the population as a whole would be different.
"In fact, in every true example of natural selection in which competing resources are at play, both A's and B's survive and reproduce for a time." This isn't true. You can have real-world cases where only 2 individuals are competing for resources in the same niche. There's nothing unrealistic about that.
"Even if decreasing the light colored moths led to extinction, this process has no affect on, and plays no role in, the eventual descendants of the dark colored moths, who continue to mutate as they would have even if the light colored moths did not decrease." Not true. Had the light colored moths not decreased, those individuals would have still been available to reproduce with, thus ensuring that the course of genetic change would be different. You can imagine a dark colored moth that would have mated with a light colored moth, but since that one was selected against in the real world, it instead mates with a dark colored moth.
"This idea is also true in examples of plants selected against by drought: the surviving drought-resistant plants continue to mutate as they would have had the drought-stricken plants survived." Not true. Here too, had the drought-stricken plants survived, they would have been available to reproduce with, thus ensuring that the course of genetic change would be different.
"If your example is correct, it must apply specifically to giraffes" My point was that the specific ABC scenario need not have ever happened with any real world giraffes. But the point that natural selection impacts the behavior of the survivors and limits who they can reproduce with, thereby impacting what genetic changes will happen, does apply to giraffes.
Best,
-Tom
[36] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. This has been a great discussion.
If I can attempt to state your position, you are stating that the elimination of one kind of organisms in a population (e.g., A's, in your example) changes the environment such that the surviving organisms in the population (e.g., B's, in your example) would behave differently, thus reproducing differently, putting the kind of future offspring, (e.g., C's, in your example) in question.
Is this correct? If not, please elaborate.
And you believe that most/all of the examples of natural selection in nature support this view?
Thank you,
Roddy
[37] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
That's correct. As an example, suppose that Neanderthals and Denisovans did not die out. In this scenario, Homo Sapiens would have continued to breed with them, thereby changing our genetic course. Or, alternatively, imagine that Neanderthals and Denisovans died out much sooner such that we never had a chance to breed with them. Our genes would be very different than they are now in this scenario.
-Tom
[38] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you again. Let me think about this a bit. I'll get back to you shortly.
Thanks!
Roddy
[39] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Sure thing!
-Tom
[40] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Your thought experiment has caused me to think, which is something I welcome. I have some initial thoughts now, and will supply more shortly. I also welcome your continued perspective.
Your first scenario is the relevant one: "As an example, suppose that Neanderthals and
Denisovans did not die out. In this scenario, Homo Sapiens would have continued to breed with them, thereby changing our genetic course."
Question: If Homo sapiens existed, why would continuing to breed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as other Homo sapiens change the genetic course of Homo sapiens?
My answer (I'm interested in yours): There may be some other human species running around, but Homo sapiens would exist just the same.
Interestingly, a Google search for "what if neanderthals and Denisovans never died out" returned this Google AI answer:
If Neanderthals and Denisovans had never gone extinct, it's likely that they would have continued to co-exist with modern humans, potentially leading to a more diverse human population with a wider range of physical traits and genetic adaptations, possibly even creating distinct "subspecies" depending on the level of interbreeding and geographical separation, while also impacting cultural development and the way humans interacted with their environment; however, their survival would have likely been heavily influenced by factors like competition for resources, disease dynamics, and the changing climate across different regions.
The Google AI perspective does have much to say after the word "potentially," but this is speculative. In general, there is no reason to believe that Homo sapiens would not exist today, supporting my view that natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change leading to any current living thing, including Homo sapiens.
Here is a video where someone else asks this question. It's a little corny and highly speculative, but the underlying assumption of the video is that Homo sapiens would exist even if Neanderthals did not go extinct.
Here is another, better, video asking the same question. This one is less speculative, but also assumes that Homo sapiens would exist as they are in the presence of Neanderthals also existing.
Thus, my initial thoughts on your thought experiment are, at least, that this scenario in no way rules out Homo sapiens existing as we are today, even in the presence of Neanderthals and Denisovans also existing. The details can be debated as conjecture, but the general idea that the genetic course of Homo sapiens would be in any substantial way different, does not hold.
Thoughts?
Thank you!
Roddy
[41] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
You ask: "If Homo sapiens existed, why would continuing to breed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as other Homo sapiens change the genetic course of Homo sapiens?" The answer is that more neanderthal/denisovan genes would spread into our gene pool. That is itself a major change to our genetic course. You say, "Homo sapiens would exist just the same" which is true, homo sapiens wouldn't cease to exist, but our genetics would be different. Homo sapiens would exist, but they would not be "existing as we are today".
I think you've adjusted your stance. Now you're indicating your concern is that natural selection plays no role in any evolutionary changes producing new species, not merely any evolutionary changes leading to any individual alive today. My neanderthal example addresses the latter, since which humans would be alive today would be massively impacted by whether neanderthals were extinct or not. It's not intended to address the claim about speciation, since I don't think you ever indicated that was your stance.
The explanation for the presence of all species involves natural selection. A fun example: after the dinosaurs went extinct, all the niches they previously occupies became empty. Previously, mammals were relegated to being small critters burrowing underground. Because dinosaurs were selected against, this opened up niches that allowed mammals to take on new niches. It's because dinosaurs were selected against that we got the wide diversity of mammals we have today. If the dinosaurs persisted, traits that pushed mammals into dinosaur niches would have predominantly been detrimental, since it'd be pushing them into an occupied niche in which they'd have steep competition. But because dinosaurs (besides birds) were gone, those traits could now be beneficial and allow for rapid radiation of new species. Humans would not exist had dinosaurs not been selected against.
Best,
-Tom
[42] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, again. I will continue to think about your view, as I don't find it unreasonable.
However, with regard to species, I have not changed my view. I used the terminology of species in my last response only because you brought it up in your example. I tend to avoid using the concept of species in discussions because of the seeming arbitrary impreciseness and changing definitions of the term. I have used the term "species" in The Natural Selection Paradox before, but the problem is that the meaning of "species" has been sliced so thin these days as to be meaningless in the context of evolution. (Are there 13, 17, or 18 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands?) That's why I use the term "current living things."
I'm not saying you are wrong, and I see your point. But based on the hypothetical you proposed (Neanderthals and Denisovans did not go extinct) and the general example, I'm not convinced human beings as a "current living thing" would not exist as they do today. I understand that genetically there could be some differences, but we would still be the "same living thing" we are today, referring to ourselves as "human beings." And we would see around us, e.g., dogs, wolves, dingos and coyotes as other "current living things."
Thank you, and I always welcome your response!
Roddy
[43] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I'm not arguing the result wouldn't be human. The point is that this would change the genetic course we go down. If neanderthals/denisovans hadn't gone extinct, none of the humans that are currently alive today would exist. It would be different humans with different genetics that exist in our place. In this way, the natural selection of neanderthals and denisovans plays a major role in the evolutionary changes that lead to you and I. So long as you treat the natural selection paradox as being about explaining the genetic changes leading to individuals, this is a case illustrating how natural selection plays a role.
-Tom
[44] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I'm still pondering your last comment. I find it largely persuasive. The issue I'm wrestling with is how to state The Natural Selection Paradox without using the term "species." The term is not currently used uniformly and precisely. For example, by the most accepted, dictionary definition, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were (and wolves and coyotes are) one species (similar characteristics and can interbreed to produce fertile offspring).
That's why I like the phrase "current living things," and need to find a way to distinguish that phrase from meaning "the exact individuals alive today."
That said, I'm still not totally convinced that an argument cannot be made that some, if not many or all, of today's exact organisms would be alive. Because evolution moves so slowly, there was plenty of time for Homo sapiens and Neanderthals to interbreed and the results of interbreeding that continued forward in Homo sapiens would likely have been set due to the natural separation of the two lines. Even today, many species that can technically interbreed, don't because of significant behavioral differences, territorial instincts, and a natural preference to mate with their own species.
Thoughts?
Best,
Roddy
[45] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I find it helpful to view 'species' as relating to multiple different species-concepts. The biological species concept works well enough in most cases, since we can draw boundaries based on which organisms can produce viable offspring with each other. It doesn't work great in all cases, ex. cases where A can breed with B and B can breed with C but A can't breed with C. Still, it works good enough in most cases, and there's different species concepts you can latch onto. You might instead frame the paradox as being about clades, but I'm not sure if that'd get you any headway. Clades are useful for thinking about ancestry, and they're better than the old linnaean taxonomy system, but it's useful when you're looking back at sparse paleontological remains. It's not really ever the case that you get an individual who's the first member of a new clade.
Regardless of whether you treat the paradox as being about species or clades or some other grouping of organisms, I think the dinosaur example is a serious challenge to you. Had the non-avian dinosaurs not been selected against, they would have continued to thrive, further diversifying and living to the present day. Their presence crowded mammals out from occupying various niches. You can't get tigers and wolves when there's tyrannosaurids and dromaeosaurs. When an organism is well-established in its niche, it's very difficult for a different organism to evolve into that niche and push them out. Consequently, mutations that push organisms into that already filled niche are more likely to be harmful than beneficial. In this way, the wide diversity of mammals depends on natural selection selecting against the non-avian dinosaurs.
Best,
-Tom
[46] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I want to reiterate how helpful this exchange of ideas has been for me. Yours is, by far, the best objection I have received to The Natural Selection Paradox. I have received many objections, and I always take the serious ones seriously. This has allowed me to carefully hone my statements and explanations better and better over the years.
Responding to your last email, let me say that, despite your valid observations, I will continue to advance The Natural Selection Paradox, possibly with some rewording. Let me explain.
For me, it’s a problem of communicating concisely, because most people really do not care about this issue, and a long explanation (as we have at our website) makes most people’s eyes glaze over. In making The Natural Selection Paradox concise, there is implicit in the phrase “evolutionary change” the more precise “necessary evolutionary change” as explained in the video, which is continuous, uninterrupted genetic change from an early genotype to all current genotypes.
To understand the importance of “necessary genetic change” I ask what I called in the video a “diagnostic question,” essentially asking what would happen if natural selection did not operate in nature. Specifically, how many of today’s species (yes! I went back and looked; in the video I used the word species) would exist if natural selection did not operate.
Thus, your “serious challenge" of the dinosaurs is not a challenge, because that scenario still requires natural selection to be operating, contrary to the assumption of the “diagnostic question.” In my thought experiment, the statement “Their presence crowded mammals out from occupying various niches” would not happen. Likewise, there would be no requirement for an “organism to evolve into that niche and push them out.” Essentially, there would be no lack of “niches” to occupy.
Admittedly, assuming “natural selection did not operate in nature” is a huge assumption, unrealistic in real life. But as a thought experiment it drives out a specific fact that, when understood, makes The Natural Selection Paradox true and calls into question the validity of the entire theory of evolution.
Specifically, the thought experiment behind The Natural Selection Paradox drives the discussion to the statement where we parted ways from our many mutual agreements:
My statement (and form of The Paradox): “Natural selection played no role in any evolutionary change to any ancestor organism of any current living thing.”
You labeled my statement false, and countered with a statement you labeled true (and, I agree it is true):
Your statement: “Natural selection does not itself generate genetic changes in any individual organism.”
I understand your valid observation that natural selection did, in fact, play “a role” by determining for any generation the gene pool available for future genetic changes in populations. I continue to ponder that fact and will modify The Paradox accordingly.
In the meantime, I wonder if we can agree with my intended outcome of this entire exercise (as expressed at the end of the video). And that is a recognition of an evolutionary theory-destroying truth. I would like to see if you agree with this statement (I’m still working on making it more concise):
“If natural evolutionary processes explain the change from an early life form to every current living thing, then for each current living thing that change occurred SOLELY due to an unbroken chain of cumulative random genetic changes, mostly copying errors, in the genetic code passed in a continuous evolutionary lineage over millions of years.”
Do you agree with that last statement? If not, why not? And, if so, does that statement, if true, not render the theory of evolution scientifically untenable as an explanation for current living things?
Thanks!
Roddy
[47] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Thanks for the compliments!
I'm not sure how to answer about the final bolded statement, since I'm a little unsure of what it means. It's true that these evolutionary changes are due to an unbroken chain of cumulative genetic changes. But it's also true that natural selection is a major part of the explanation for which of those genetic changes happen. Just because natural selection does not directly generate those changes, it nonetheless impacts the circumstances that generate those genetic changes. Depending on what you mean by "solely", I'm not sure if the statement is true or not. If it's compatible with natural selection being indirectly responsible for many of those genetic changes, the statement is fine.
It's not true that if you were to remove natural selection entirely and start life over, you'd end up with all the species alive today (+ones that went extinct and their descendants). You'd end up with none of the species alive today. Speciation can still happen, but it'd be different species. To illustrate, imagine 2 populations of the same species that become reproductively isolated. They still could in principle breed with each other, but they don't because the populations are not near each other. Different mutations develop in the populations. In the real world, some mutations will provide a comparative reproductive advantage over other members of the population. Imagine a hypothetical mutation x that provides such an advantage to one of the populations. In the real world, this gene reaches fixation in the population, since it incurs this comparative advantage. You thus get two separate species, one of which has the x gene, the other does not. Now imagine the same scenario, but remove natural selection. The x gene emerges in one of the populations. However, it never reaches fixation in the population, since it doesn't produce a comparative advantage in a condition without natural selection. Speciation can still happen, but it won't be the same species that occur when natural selection is present. In a scenario without natural selection, all mutations are effectively neutral mutations, but it's much more difficult for neutral mutations to reach fixation in a population than beneficial mutations, since they don't have selection behind them spurring fixation on.
Natural selection also impacts the behavior of organisms. In a condition of natural selection, a group of one species may move to a new environment in search of food to hunt, since their original environment doesn't have enough food. Because they go to a new environment, they speciate away from the original population they came from. Without natural selection, this group wouldn't need to go to a new environment in search of new food, since that pressure no longer exists for them. Therefore, speciation doesn't happen since the populations don't become reproductively isolated.
Another example, related to one I gave earlier: say there's 2 individuals x an y whose descendants in the real world produce a new species. However, they only breed because a different individual z was selected against. If he hadn't been, then y would have instead bread with z, and consequently the species that x and y's descendants would have generated never happen.
Best,
-Tom
[48] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
The bolded statement at the end of my previous email IS compatible with natural selection being indirectly responsible for many of those genetic changes.
The point is, that with or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form.
I find that idea scientifically untenable. You?
Thanks,
Roddy
[49] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
"The point is, that with or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form."
So long as this statement is understood in a way that's compatible with natural selection being indirectly involved in which genetic changes occur (as the examples in my previous email illustrate), it seems true. I don't know why it should seem untenable. I'm not taking it to say much more than "unguided mechanisms like mutation are responsible for generating the chain of genetic sequences that have led up to the diversity of life today", which is straightforwardly true. What's untenable about this? Or, should I be reading more into your statement?
Best,
-Tom
[50] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Well, I have the standard analogies, of course. My statement (altered slightly) in a different context could read:
"The point is, that with or without a selection process at each stage of change, the only changes that account for the information in every book today are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from a theorized original, intact, message of an early parchment manuscript."
Do you agree this is an accurate analogy? If not, why not? If so, would you accept this as the explanation as a scientific matter?
Thanks!
Roddy
[51] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
The creation of books isn't particularly analogous to evolution, since that's intelligently designed. A better comparison is genetic algorithms where ai's can find optimum performance without being pre-programed to know what to do. Instead, it follows evolutionary principles by having generations with simulated mutations and the best performing individuals having the best odds of continuing to the next generation. Here's an example:
I'm not sure why this should be implausible when we can observe it happening.
Best,
-Tom
[52] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
"The creation of books isn't particularly analogous to evolution, since that's intelligently designed."
That's missing the point of the analogy. My statement describes a process in which books are NOT intelligently designed.
AI is the epitome of intelligent design. There is no such thing as "not being pre-programmed" to "know what to do." This analogy seems more akin to, and equally as valid as, the idea that God is directing evolution.
But I would like to hear more of your thoughts about my book analogy.
Best,
Roddy
[53] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I don't think the book analogy is very helpful, since it's essentially saying "evolution is analogous to something that's intelligently designed instead hypothetically being the result of evolutionary mechanisms". If books followed evolutionary principles, and if there was a selection criterion of similarity to books that exist today, generations of books could trend toward the books we have today, but it could take a very, very long time, since the books that exist in the real world are intelligently designed ones, not ones that are easily produced through evolutionary mechanisms. I prefer the genetic algorithm analogy, because this is something that produces efficiency following evolutionary principles in the real world. There's a very close analogy you can draw between it and natural evolution.
The AI in the genetic algorithms are not pre-programmed knowing what to do. In the video example I sent you, each simulated "creature" has a set number of actions it can perform, but it's not told ahead of time what it should do. Instead, in each generation you have many individuals with simulated mutations that incline them to perform different actions. As the generations go by, the individuals that do the best have better odds of passing on their simulated "genes", such that future generations will behave more like them. This isn't analogous to God directing evolution, since it's still the (simulated) environment that selects the individuals, and you aren't deciding which simulated mutations happen. It's much more analogous to natural evolution of organisms. I suppose you could say it's analogous to God creating an environment, populating it with an initial population of organisms, and then being hands-off, letting evolutionary mechanisms work without guiding it.
Best,
-Tom
[54] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I really do appreciate your perspective. But I believe the book analogy is exactly right, and I'll take one more stab before giving it a rest.
Imagine a future when aliens come to earth and wonder, without any eyewitnesses to rely on, how books came to be. And, imagine the science of the day was beholden to naturalistic philosophy, so "origins of books" scientists were required to come up with a naturalistic, unguided, purposeless process to explain books. One naturalistic method is the one I proposed, possibly based on a rogue digital program that churned out endless "mutations" over millions of years. I suspect nobody would find it scientifically tenable.
Your insistence that "books that exist in the real world are intelligently designed ones" continues to assume a fact not supported in my statement. And the fact that you cannot resist inferring design (as would the aliens) despite design being ruled out speaks volumes about the nature of this entire debate.
Let me amend my analogy statement a bit, and see if it helps. I believe that your "intelligent design" and "if there was a selection criterion" objections are not applicable in this revised statement. Here it is again with bolded terms added:
"The point is, that with or without a selection process at each stage of change, the only changes that account for the information in every book today are unguided, purposeless, unintelligently made, cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from a theorized original, intact, message of an early parchment manuscript."
I would like one more response from you on this revised book analogy, and then we can let it go. I ask again, do you agree this is an accurate analogy to evolution of genotypes? If not, why not? If so, in the absence of human design as an option, would you accept this as the explanation for books as a scientific matter?
Thanks!
Roddy
PS: I know I won't convince you on the shortcomings of the AI computer simulation idea. But I include this postscript with my views. I am happy to discuss this more, once I am satisfied I have your final viewpoint on my statement: "The point is, that with or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form."
For now, with respect to your AI example, I admit I have not yet watched the video, and I should. But I highly suspect that this AI system suffers (in my opinion) from every other (and there are many) computer simulations of evolution. The flaw is in the idea of individuals "inclined" to perform different actions and determining those who "do the best". What do notions of "inclined" and "the best" and "better odds" mean in an unguided, purposeless process with no forward looking goal? Notions of "inclined," "best," and "odds" are programming choices, whether by humans or a program designed by humans. In my view, these schemes, going all the way back to Dawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" program always rest on, but try to mask, goal-oriented guidance of some kind. And evolution is not goal oriented.
[55] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
The reason natural, evolutionary mechanisms wouldn't seem plausible for explaining the appearance of these books is because we already know books don't operate in this way. They don't reproduce, they don't mutate, there's no transferal of anything like genes, etc. We already know books don't have the means to diversify in this way, so we know proposing it is a silly idea. If books did reproduce/mutate/transfer genes/and if there was a natural selection mechanism that trended toward books like we see today, and if we didn't independently know books were intelligently designed, then an evolutionary account of the diversification of books would look plausible. If books reproduced/mutated/transferred genes/etc., then the analogy would be apt, but since they don't, books are importantly different from organisms. Organisms have the means to diversify naturalistically, books don't.
Small note, but I think you misunderstood the point about "if there was a selection criterion". This would be an unguided, natural selection criterion. I'm assuming you bolded unguided, purposeless, unintelligently made in response to it because you thought I was referring to an intelligent/guided selection criterion.
Regarding the non-book version of the statement: "The point is, that with or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form," I'm still fine with it so long as it's interpreted in a way that's compatible with natural selection playing an indirect role in which genetic changes occur.
Regarding genetic algorithms, "inclined" refers to the probabilities each synthetic organism has for performing each of the available actions. What those probabilities are is a product of simulated mutation and inheritance from earlier generations. "Odds" doesn't have a special meaning here, it's just standard statistics. "Best" depends on the genetic algorithm. In the example I sent you, the synthetic organisms are being forced to participate in an obstacle course in a manner similar to the game Flappy Bird. If an organism hits a wall, it dies. Whichever gets the furthest through the obstacle course has the highest odds of passing its "genes" down to the next generation, which is analogous to natural organisms that are better adapted to surviving having better odds of successfully reproducing.
I'd agree there's goal-oriented decisions being made, but this is in the success criteria. The programmer pre-programs what success is (ex. deciding success is avoiding running into blocks). There isn't goal-oriented decisions being made in the synthetic creatures. They don't know what the goal is, and they aren't striving to achieve any goal. They just explore the environment, some of them reproduce better according to the rules established at the outset, and the result is efficient navigation of the game after many generations. So, again, this is analogous to a God creating an environment and populating it with an initial generation, but it's further analogous to that God not interfering with what mutations happen or with who lives or dies once the simulation starts. Once it starts, God is hands-off, He's not guiding anything.
Best,
-Tom
[56] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your explanation. If I could impose on your patience a bit longer, I would like to get your thoughts on one more line of thinking.
It relates to your statement: "Organisms have the means to diversify naturalistically, books don't."
Do you agree that the only evolutionary "means" that can produce "diversity" of organisms is heritable genetic variation?
Thanks!
Roddy
[57] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Natural selections plays a role in what diversification of organisms will happen, but the mechanisms that generate the genetic variation are ones like mutation. To the extent your statement is consistent with this, I agree, and if it's inconsistent with this, I disagree.
-Tom
[58] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I agree with your statement. As far as natural selection's role is concerned, do you agree with Darwin's statement that natural selection "rejects" some of the diversity produced by heritable genetic change, and "preserves" the rest?
Thank you!
Roddy
PS: I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, and I only have one or two more questions. I'm taking a different tack to get to a different way of supporting my statement, which you said "seems true" and I find "scientifically untenable": "The point is, that with or without natural selection, the only evolutionary changes that account for current life (of any kind/form) from an early life form are cumulative, random, primarily copying, errors built up over time from the theorized original, intact, code of building instructions of the early life form.
[59] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Not a problem, I've been enjoying our conversation. It's correct that natural selection rejects some diversity and preserves the rest. This is the direct influence it has. But I don't think this is the only relevant role it plays, it also indirectly influences what new genetic diversity arises, as several of my previous cases hopefully indicated. If you amend to saying this is the only role natural selection directly plays, I'm happy.
-Tom
[60] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I'm good with your qualification. I think we can both agree to this:
Natural selection "rejects" some of the diversity produced by heritable genetic change, and "preserves" the rest, thereby influencing what new genetic diversity arises in the future.
My next question is this: Consider any string of coded information, such as this sentence, a symphonic musical notation, or the code for Microsoft Word. As a scientific matter, would a mistake in copying the code be expected to introduce “order” or “disorder” into the code?
If, as a scientific matter, you would expect order to be introduced, please explain using a simple example like this sentence, a musical notation, or a computer code.
Thanks!
Roddy
[61] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
If 'order' is related to 'meaningfulness', most copying mistakes would increase disorder. For genes, it's most useful to think about what promotes survivability. Most mutations are neutral in this respect, others are deleterious, and the smallest portion are beneficial, but they have the best odds of spreading and reaching fixation in a population.
-Tom
[62] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I understand, and I trust you know I'm not trying to set a trap or pose "gotcha" questions. But this issue of "order" vs "disorder" is pressing on a key issue in the "scientific tenability" of my previous statement, and evolutionary theory in general.
In view of your notion of "meaningfulness," help me understand: How is a random copying error in an otherwise intact code (such as this sentence) not a disordering just because it happens to be, by purposeless chance, meaningful?
For reference, I'm using the terms "order" and "disorder" in their ordinary, scientific sense, as Google AI presents:
Thus, I agree that for coded information "disorder represents a random or chaotic arrangement with no clear pattern, often leading to difficulty in interpreting or processing the information." "Often" does not rule out the occasional beneficial disorder, but it is disorder nonetheless.
Thanks,
Roddy
[63] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I may rephrase my last question, as I see it is not perfectly compatible with my first question about order and disorder. If you reply before I have a revised question, that's OK. :) But I'll re-phrase my question in a next reply.
Roddy
[64] Roddy:
Sorry for the confusion, but I noticed my last question did not follow nicely from my first question and your reply.
Here was my first question: "Consider any string of coded information, such as this sentence, a symphonic musical notation, or the code for Microsoft Word. As a scientific matter, would a mistake in copying the code be expected to introduce “order” or “disorder” into the code?"
Your answer: "If 'order' is related to 'meaningfulness', most copying mistakes would increase disorder. For genes, it's most useful to think about what promotes survivability. Most mutations are neutral in this respect, others are deleterious, and the smallest portion are beneficial, but they have the best odds of spreading and reaching fixation in a population."
Follow up question, reiterating the intent of my first question: As an objective scientific matter, for coded information such as this sentence, what would be expected from a random copying error, disorder or order introduced into the coded information?
And, based upon what I believe are valid scientific expectations, I'll go ahead and include my previous question, slightly modified: How is a random copying error in an otherwise intact code (such as this sentence) not a disordering just because it happens to be, by purposeless chance, unexpectedly meaningful?
So, two questions. Thank you!
Thanks!
Roddy
[65] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Take the sentence: "I went to the park with my dog." Then, say by some random duplication mechanism, the string transforms into "I went to the park with my dog I went to the park with my dog I went to the park with my dog...(repeated hundreds of times)". If you take 'order' to refer to what's structured/patterned/etc., there hasn't been a loss of order, if anything it became more orderly, since there's an identifiable pattern in the appearance of characters. If, instead of simply what's structured/patterned/etc., you take 'order' to refer to what's meaningful, then at least for a standard English syntax, there's a loss of order here, since it's become ungrammatical. Similarly, say the transformations turn "I went to the park with my dog" into "gfgfgfgfgfgfgf", this has increased order in the sense that it's more structured/patterned, but it's decreased order if this is taken to mean 'meaningfulness', since the string doesn't mean anything. And if it instead transforms into "byk wdwlq ccyr wlibwe", it isn't particularly ordered in either senses you might intend. Separate from both these senses of ordered is survivability. Regardless of whether the string follows a pattern or if it means something, it may or may not promote survival. A genetic sequence might be patterned and 'mean' something, in the sense that it encodes some proteins, but it might not contribute positively to survival. If this third way of speaking is what you mean by 'ordered', most mutations are neutral with regard to order, some detract from it, and the smallest portion increase order.
So, the answer to your last question depends on what you mean by ordered. If 'ordered' means adhering to a pattern, the answer is that the random alteration can produce a different pattern. If 'ordered' means meaningful, then the random alteration can happen to produce something new that's meaningful in a language. If 'ordered' is about survivability, the random alteration can produce a change that makes an organism better fit to survive in an environment. There's a fourth option for what you have in mind for 'ordered' and 'disordered' here, though, this being a measure of degree of similarity to some intended, initial state. Someone writes a sentence, say "I went to the park with my dog", intending to write this. If random changes turn this into "I went to the park with my hog", it's still meaningful and adhering to syntactical patterns, but it's deviated from what was initially intended. Is this what you mean by it still being a decrease in order even if it's meaningful? If so, the answer is that there is no intended, initial state for organisms. There isn't a way their genetics are supposed to be, and therefore there is no deviance away from how they're supposed to be.
Best,
-Tom
[66] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
You are highlighting the exact right issues. "Ordered" can mean different things in different contexts.
Here is how I'm using order, and more importantly, disorder, in the context of my question:
"Order" in the context of genetic codes (or any code), means more than "adhering to a pattern" or "meaningful" or "survival." I'm using ordered (as the first AI Overview below states), to mean a specific sequence of code elements that function to determine protein structure, and which order ultimately (as the second AI Overview below states), manifests as a set of instructions dictating the construction of traits in a phenotype.
"Disorder" would be any change to the "specified sequence of code elements." In the evolutionary context, "disorder" arises due to random, unguided, purposeless changes/mutations to the "specified sequence" of base pairs in a genetic code.
Before I rephrase my original "expectation" question, let me pause and ask this: Do you agree that heritable genetic variation is due to disorder introduced into the genetic code passed to offspring?
If not, explain why not with reference to my view and the Ai Overviews provided.
Thanks!
Roddy
[67] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Given the use of 'ordered' you're offering, I don't agree that heritable genetic variation is due simply to disorder introduced into the genetic code. The definition of ordered you gave is code that determines protein structure and dictates the phenotype. Mutations don't merely diminish order, in this sense, they also introduce order. Mutations can result in genetic changes that determine new protein structures and alter the organism's phenotype. A lot of the time these changes will be detrimental. The definition you gave of ordered is consistent with changes that prevent survival. But even setting that aside, mutations also produce changes like these that promote survival.
Best,
-Tom
[68] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
My use of disorder is agnostic to whether changes are detrimental, or order is diminished.
Here it is again: “Disorder" would be any change to the "specified sequence of code elements." In the evolutionary context, "disorder" arises due to random, unguided, purposeless changes/mutations to the "specified sequence" of base pairs in a genetic code.
I'm simply trying to establish what seems obvious, and is obvious in any other context, and that is that a random, unguided, purposeless change to a sequence of code elements that function for a purpose would not be described by any other word than "disorder." It may, by chance, have a neutral or even positive result, but it is a disordering event.
Let's move on. Here is my previous question, revised (and slightly longer):
As an objective scientific matter, with or without a selection process, would you expect the introduction of repeated disorder into an otherwise intact and working sequence of code elements that function for a purpose to change the code into a different intact, working genetic code with additional or improved functions?
Keep in mind I'm not asking what "might" happen. I'm asking what you would expect, and the scientific basis supporting that expectation. If you would expect additional or improved functions over time, in your explanation of the scientific basis, apply it to a coded symphonic musical notation as an example.
(Here is the question in the context of a real world example. Scientists tell us our first animal ancestor was likely a sea sponge. Would you expect repeated random disorder introduced into the otherwise intact and working genotype for the sea sponge to change the sea sponge genotype over time in to the a human genotype with all the additional instructions for all the additional and improved features and functions to build human beings?).
Thanks!
Roddy
[69] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
By the previous definition of disorder you gave, random, unguided, purposeless changes to a genetic sequence can be ordered, both ones that are detrimental and beneficial, since your definition of order is agnostic about whether the changes are detrimental or beneficial. The definition I'm referring to is "I'm using ordered (as the first AI Overview below states), to mean a specific sequence of code elements that function to determine protein structure, and which order ultimately (as the second AI Overview below states), manifests as a set of instructions dictating the construction of traits in a phenotype." Random mutations can produce new code elements that function to determine protein structures, and they can manifest as sets of instructions dictating the construction of traits in a phenotype. By your own definition of ordered, these would be ordered.
If you instead define "disorder" as "any change to the specified sequence of code elements", then sure, mutations would by definition be disordered, but I don't think that's a good definition of disorder. For example, populations of humans have experienced mutations that make them better adapted to living in their environments. There's populations that go dive fishing that are adapted to holding their breath underwater for longer. There's people living at high altitude adapted to the thin air. Are these disorders? They're changes to the specified sequence of code elements, but I wouldn't call them disorders. They're merely different orders. Humans with lactose tolerance in adulthood are mutants, but I'd sooner say that lactose intolerance in adulthood is disordered than the reverse. Heck, since all traits we see today are the result of alterations to genes, your definition would imply all genes are disordered. Clearly that's not right.
"As an objective scientific matter, with or without a selection process, would you expect the introduction of repeated disorder into an otherwise intact and working sequence of code elements that function for a purpose to change the code into a different intact, working genetic code with additional or improved functions?" Since I don't buy these are necessarily disordered, I think the question is malformed. I expect mutations to introduce new order that has this effect. Relatedly, if you have sheet music, and you make millions of copies of it, but each with slight adjustments to the notes, I expect some of the changes to sound good. You'd call them all disordered given your definition of disorder, but as I indicated above, it's not a good definition of disorder when you apply it to organisms.
Best,
-Tom
[70] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Let me try again, using the most basic evolutionary term I can think of: "change."
As an objective scientific matter, with or without a selection process, would you expect the introduction of repeated, random changes to an otherwise intact and working sequence of code elements that function for a purpose to alter the code over time into a very different intact, working sequence of code elements that function for new and different purposes with additional or improved functions?
If yes, why?
And if you will, go ahead and answer the modified "sea sponge" question while you are at it:
Would you expect repeated random changes introduced into the otherwise intact and working genotype for the sea sponge to alter the sea sponge genotype over time to become a human genotype with all the additional instructions for all the additional and improved features and functions to build human beings?
Thank you!
Roddy
[71] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Without natural selection, I would expect random changes to a working sequence of functional code elements to result in different sequences of functional code elements with improved functions. In the absence of natural selection, the changes that have the best odds of reaching fixation would be ones that result in the organism reproducing more frequently. Changes that normally would have promoted survival won't be so important, since natural selection doesn't exist in this scenario, so those changes will have a difficult time reaching fixation in a population. In small populations, they can reach fixation by genetic drift, but genetic changes that ordinarily would be detrimental to survival would also reach fixation in small populations, since again natural selection doesn't exist. The changes that promote more frequent reproduction will spread best because natural selection isn't there to punish these organisms for overpopulation.
I don't think we evolved from sea sponges, but we do share a very early common ancestor. We can run the question with whatever that ancestor was. I believe that random changes in their lineage eventually led to humans. If we take copies of that ancestral population and observe them for millions of years, I don't expect the result to be humans again. Evolution is highly contingent, we're not the inevitable result of evolutionary change. I would expect random changes in that population to produce different complex organisms.
Best,
-Tom
[72] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. Just to be clear, before I respond, the short answer to my first question is "yes"?
Thanks!
Roddy
[73] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Yeah, the short answer to the first question is 'yes', with the qualification that the absence of natural selection dramatically impacts which changes reach fixation. You'd end up with organisms that are adapted to constantly reproducing, rather than organisms that are adapted to surviving, since natural selection isn't present. The scenario is similar to speculative evolution scenarios that imagine what would happen if you had a world with unlimited food, though it's not exactly the same.
-Tom
[74] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you. I'm coming to the end of my questions, but one last topic I would like to get your thoughts on.
Would you agree that it's accurate to say that the change from an early genotype to current genotypes requires an increase in order over time? (I'm using "order" in the sense applicable to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., a decrease in the entropy of the evolving genotype.)
If not, how would you frame the concept of change from an early genotype to current genotypes?
Thanks!
Roddy
[75] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Yes, life is localized low entropy state, especially complex life, though life has the effect of increasing total entropy. Organisms are like engines that take as input free energy and output entropy (ex. by radiating heat).
-Tom
[76] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thanks, and just so I'm clear, you believe that the relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype is the result of repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order)?
Thanks!
Roddy
Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Yeah, simpler organisms would represent higher entropy than more complex organisms.
-Tom
[77] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you, but your reply does not answer the question. Here it is again, more explicitly as a yes or no question:
"Do you believe that the relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype is the result of repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order)?
If no, please explain how the lower entropy happens.
Thanks!
Roddy
[78] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
'Yeah' is answering 'yes' to the question, that's how those organisms arose.
-Tom
[79] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you for that clarity. One more question (probably, depends upon your answer): Same question with one very important word added (in bold underline):
"Do you believe that the relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype is the result solely of repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order)?
Yes, or no? If no, please explain what else is involved in the process of decreasing the entropy of genotypes, and how it works to reduce entropy.
Thank you!
Roddy
[80] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Natural selection plays a role in what genotypes appear and which ones spread and persist and change in the future. It doesn't play a direct role in generating them, but it is indirectly involved in this. So, if by 'solely' you mean to exclude natural selection from playing any role, I disagree. If instead you merely mean it isn't directly generating them, then I agree.
-Tom
[81] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Well, at least one more question based upon your key insight around "generating" :).
If evolution has any value as an explanation for current living things it must explain how they were "generated." Darwin's book could equally be titled "On the Generation of Species."
With your insight in mind, I pose the same question again, slightly altered with one more word highlighted and underlined:
"Do you believe that the relatively low entropy (relatively high order) of every current genotype was generated solely by repeated, random changes to an early genotype that exhibited relatively higher entropy (relatively lower order)?
Thanks!
Roddy
[82] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
This statement is mostly fine, though I'd quibble about the 'random' label. Mutations are deterministic rather than truly random. Plus, greater complexity can arise by mixing genes, such as through sexual reproduction, which isn't random. If 'random' is replaced with 'unguided', I think it'd be fine.
-Tom
[83] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you! I'm going to stick with "random" as it is a true characterization of mutations, which I understand are the primary source of genetic variation, and which avoids any "guidance notions" that might attach to "deterministic." See the two Google AI blurbs below.
And with that, we might be done! I don't have any more questions. I will put together a summary of where we agree and where we disagree, and I can provide my reasons for disagreeing. Look for that in the near future.
Thank you for the great back-and-forth. Your statements have confirmed the point of The Natural Selection Paradox, which is that natural selection plays no role in generating the only kind of evolutionary change that matters: the generation of new genotypes.
I will have to massage The Paradox wording and explanation a bit to take into account your correct observation that natural selection plays a role in evolution by determining which of the genetic codes generated solely by random changes are preserved, which is an important evolutionary mechanism, but does not explain genotype generation in the first place.
In the meantime, feel free to ask me any questions. You have graciously been answering my questions, and I'm happy to reciprocate.
Thanks!
Roddy
[84] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
There's nothing I feel I need to ask, but I do have to correct that natural selection's role isn't limited to determining which genes are preserved. As several of my previous examples illustrated, it also indirectly impacts which genetic changes appear. If you change who gets selected, you prevent certain genetic changes from happening at all and you allow other genetic changes to happen. And as I illustrated earlier, if natural selection did not exist, no organisms and no species alive today would exist. It would be radically different life that exists, and it probably wouldn't be very complex.
Also, if the Natural Selection Paradox is limited to "natural selection plays no [direct] role in generating the only kind of evolutionary change that matters: the generation of new genotypes", there is no paradox. It's just a non-controversial statement about what natural selection does not do.
Best,
-Tom
[85] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I continue to ponder our great conversation. Recall you convinced me that The Natural Selection Paradox is subject to your valid criticism regarding changing gene pools.
I am kicking around some reworked statements and would like to get your opinion. Would you agree that these two statements are true statements (the second expands on the first)? If not, why not (aside from your concerns with the term "random")?
Despite natural selection’s role in nature, every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change.
Despite natural selection’s role in nature, every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by random evolutionary change, because each current life form occupies the end of an unbroken chain of cumulative random genetic changes to the original genetic code in the first life form.
Best,
Roddy
[86] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
Glad to hear from you! The statements look fine to me, so long as they are understood as consistent with natural selection playing an indirect role in making certain genetic sequences emerge, not merely eliminating genetic sequences. Given this, it looks to me that there's no paradox. The statements amount to saying nothing more than that, although natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism, it isn't one that itself generates new genes, and you can form an unbroken chain for all life leading back to the first organism, each genetic change being the result of natural processes like mutation. There's nothing controversial there, and there's nothing that is paradoxical for evolutionary theory.
Best,
-Tom
[87] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you!
I appreciate your thoughts! The statements are indeed consistent with natural selection playing an indirect role. But the indirect role does not change the "controversial" nature of the statements. Taking the first statement, it is equally true without the nod to natural selection:
"Every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change."
In my view that statement should be very controversial. That true statement cannot be defended scientifically.
Thoughts? Specifically, if you would, tell me what is your scientific reason to believe that the statement above can be true? I need to know before I go public with a new Natural Selection Paradox. (Maybe give me an example in a different real-world context in nature where cumulative random change produced increased functional complexity.)
Thank you!
Roddy
[88] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
We know it's true, since we observe adaptations arising by random mutations in the present day. We can also construct phylogenetic trees from fossil evidence that lines up perfectly with the trees produced using genetic evidence. There's no reason for why fossil evidence and genetic evidence would both indicate that whales and dolphins are most similar to land dwelling, even-toed ungulates like cows and hippos, and not nearly as similar to manatees, seals, or sharks, unless whales and dolphins evolved from them in the naturalistic way evolution describes. The odds of the genetic and fossil evidence both pointing to the same picture are impossibly small, otherwise. Further, there's no known mechanism that would prevent these changes from happening in this way. It's easy to imagine how mutations can turn an arm into a fin. These are just some of the evidences: we see it happening today, we see it happened in the past, and there's no theoretical problem with it happening.
Best,
-Tom
[89] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you again. I think yours is the best answer that can be provided.
But I'm looking for a scientific principle to support the idea that disorder/less functional complexity can randomly change into more order/more functional complexity. The fact that we see occasional "adaptations" does rise to a scientific principle that would explain the seemingly scientifically impossible.
Do you have a scientific law or principle that explains such a massive, directional increase in functional complexity could arise SOLELY from random changes to less functional complexity?
Question: taking the universe as a closed system, do you believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics permits a pocket of localized decreased entropy in our corner of the universe?
I know the sun-earth system argument. I'm asking based on the universe as a closed (to ouside energy) system, do you believe the 2nd Law permits our observation of localized decreased entropy? If so, can you explain why? And, can you provide an example of any other closed system that experiences localized decreased entropy in the absence of an ordering principle (like the ordering processes of photosynthesis or refrigeration)?
Thank you for your patience. I'm trying to anticipate all the objections to my newly formulated Natural Selection Paradox.
Best,
Roddy
[90] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
All that's needed is a scientific theory for how it happens that's supported by strong evidence. The theory of evolution is that theory. You acknowledge that we sometimes observe adaptations from mutations, that alone is sufficient to see that you can get order from these random processes. I'm not sure what a 'scientific principle' would be beyond the wealth of fossil and genetic evidence and the observations we make of it happening and the well-supported theories describing how it happens. I'd need you to be more specific about what you feel is lacking here. The theory of evolution is what explains the massive, directional increase in functional complexity arising from less functional complexity.
Yes, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 100% permits the earth to be a pocket of localized decreased entropy. Life gets free energy from sources like the sun, which is spent on resisting entropy. Another example would be the formation of crystals. Crystals are localized lower entropy, and this happens because crystallization releases heat. I'm treating the universe as the closed system in this example.
Best,
-Tom
[91] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Thank you again.
What I take is that you do not have a scientific principle to explain massive functional ordering from random changes beyond the "explanations" of the "theory". You state, "The theory of evolution is what explains the massive, directional increase in functional complexity arising from less functional complexity." But that is the question, not the answer.
The fact that you refer to "well-supported theories describing how it happens" indicates a lack of understanding my question. I know "how" the theory describes, and we both agree on it: the theory explains the "how" by theorizing massive increases in function order based SOLELY on random changes, usually copying errors.
I'm saying that this "how" lacks any scientific backing. You can believe a "how" despite any scientific reason beyond the demands of theory, but I can't.
Based on your answer, I'm supposed to believe, despite any scientific reason to believe beyond the demands of the theory, that cumulative random changes ALONE explain massive cumulative functional ordering complexity. I hope you can understand that, in the absence of an ordering principle explained scientifically, I cannot join this belief.
That's why I asked the question about the 2nd Law. As for your explanation of localized decrease in entropy in the universe, your examples rely on non-contingent scientific principles, exactly what I'm trying to find for evolution. Specifically non-contingent entropy-decreasing processes can "spend energy" in entropy decreasing ways (presumably like photosynthesis) and non-contingent physical laws of attraction can force a lowest energy state (e.g., cyrstals).
Question: Is the "how" of evolutionary cumulative random change that produces decreased entropy in a genetic code due to (1) a non-contingent entropy-decreasing process or (2) a non-contingent physical law of attraction forcing a lower energy state? If so, what? If not, again, what is the scientific principle at work in the cumulative random changes of evolution producing massive decreases in entropy?
Thanks again!
Roddy
[92] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I'm not understanding what you think is left unexplained. We understand how mutations emerge, including beneficial mutations, and we understand how these mutations can reach fixation in the population. What specifically do you think is unexplained here? For some reason you think there's something paradoxical or mystical here, and I'm not seeing an explanation of why you think that.
"Based on your answer, I'm supposed to believe, despite any scientific reason to believe beyond the demands of the theory" No, my answer was explicitly that the reasons to believe this are evidence you can witness today. You can see it happen today, and you can see that it happened in the past. The reason to believe isn't "the demands of the theory".
"As for your explanation of localized decrease in entropy in the universe, your examples rely on non-contingent scientific principles, exactly what I'm trying to find for evolution. Specifically non-contingent entropy-decreasing processes can "spend energy" in entropy decreasing ways (presumably like photosynthesis) and non-contingent physical laws of attraction can force a lowest energy state (e.g., crystals)." I have no clue what complaint you're making here, and I have no idea what your question is asking for. Are you asking how mutations that can create order happen? If you're not asking that, I think your question is simply incoherent.
Best,
-Tom
[93] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
I will not press my questions any more. I have my answers.
It seems you are ultimately relying on a theoretical explanation and "evidence that we can witness today." That is fine, but note that we all witness the same evidence. We differ in our beliefs because we fit our observations into a different theoretical explanations that we believe to be true. One sees the sun orbiting the earth, another standing beside him sees the earth orbiting the sun. In the absence of scientific principles (non-contingent principle of gravity, for example) both heleocentrists and geocentrists can claim "evidence we can witness today" as irrefutable support for their theory.
But only one of geocentrists and heliocentrists has a scientific principle to explain his observations.
Thank you, again. No more questions for now.
Roddy
[94] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
I don't agree with your assessment. Evolutionary theory is able to explain the observations far better than Creationism can, in the same way that heliocentrism explains the motions of the planets far better than geocentrism. It's also like how the globe model can explain why there's sometimes a 24-hour sun in Antarctica, whereas flat earth models that treat the north pole as the center of the world have no explanation for the 24-hour sun. In the same way, evolutionary theory explains every relevant observation in biology, and they are baffling on the Creationist model. What specific, relevant observations do you think the evolutionary model is failing to explain?
-Tom
[95] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
Well, that is where we disagree. Heliocentrism explains the motion of the planets better not because of a theory and observations, but because there are non-contingent natural laws that explain it, even demand it (gravity and Newton's laws of motion). There are no non-contingent natural laws of nature capable of explaining, even demanding, decreasing entropy in the genetic code of the first living thing to every current living thing.
You question: "What specific, relevant observations do you think the evolutionary model is failing to explain?" shows you have missed my entire point in my last few emails, summarized in the paragraph above, especially in the last sentence.
You are not grasping the idea (or I am not asking the right questions) around scientific causality based on non-contingent laws of nature that can explain the massive functional order produced by cumulative random changes.
But I think I get your point. You believe millions and millions of random changes ALONE can accumulate directionally in thousands of individual ancestral lines as the SOLE change agent to explain the change the first genotype into every current genotype.
I find no scientific reason to believe such a thing, and you do. That is what differentiates our positions on evolution, and it's OK. I just wanted to make sure I was not missing something about your position.
Thanks again!
Roddy
[96] Tom:
Hi Roddy,
"Heliocentrism explains the motion of the planets better not because of a theory and observations, but because there are non-contingent natural laws that explain it, even demand it (gravity and Newton's laws of motion)" Natural laws describe regularities in the behavior and qualities of the universe. Natural laws can be described on the basis of observations. Observations also lend credence to or contradict the predictions of scientific theories, which are explanations for phenomena in the universe. These theories can have natural laws as components. For instance, you could have a scientific theory for why elephants can't fly, and this theory could include as part of the explanation the natural law of the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. It's false to deny that heliocentrism explains the motion of the planets better because it is the theory that best fits the observations. Natural laws are relevant, in that they can be components of the theory that explain the phenomenon.
I'm not sure why you think it's unbelievable that random mutations could result in lower entropy (in this context I presume you mean something like 'ordered complexity' when you talk about low entropy). I'm primarily confused by this, since we witness mutations produce new, ordered complexity today. Organisms gain new orderly, complex, functional structures that benefit their survival, and we can see today this arising due to mutations. To understand how this is possible, it's helpful to understand that entropy is about probabilities. The movement from a high entropy state to a low entropy state is the motion from a more likely state to a less likely state. Most mutations are not more ordered or more beneficial, which is because in a random change an increase in entropy (and consequently a less ordered, less-beneficial state) is more likely. But this isn't the same as lower entropy here being impossible. Sometimes, the random changes happen upon a lower entropy state that is more ordered, more complex, and more beneficial. It then costs energy for the organism with this mutation to maintain its genes against gene damage (which would increase its entropy). And it costs even more energy for it to spread these genes. But by the natural laws of natural selection (laws describing that beneficial genes are more likely to spread), these rare lower entropy genes have better odds of reaching fixation in the population. Without natural selection, these lucky decreases in entropy would be washed out in the gene pool, but thanks to natural selection, they get locked in, allowing further decreases in entropy to develop in the population bit by bit. Decreases in entropy thus become inevitable given enough time and individuals experiencing mutations.
Best.
-Tom
[97] Roddy:
Hi Tom,
"Natural laws describe regularities in the behavior and qualities of the universe." Yes, and it is this kind of scientific regularity that I'm trying to ascertain to explain the massive ordering over millions of years that random changes to a first ordered functional code can produce. So far you have not identified one.
"Natural laws can be described on the basis of observations." Yes. What is the natural law explained by cumulative random changes to one set of functional order to achieve many thousands of more complex functional order? So far you have not identified one.
"For instance, you could have a scientific theory for why elephants can't fly, and this theory could include as part of the explanation the natural law of the acceleration due to gravity on Earth." Yes, exactly. I have a theory as to why cumulative random changes to a first functionally ordered code would not produce many thousands of more highly ordered code. Part of my explanation relies on the 2d Law of Thermodynamics on Earth.
"It's false to deny that heliocentrism explains the motion of the planets better because it is the theory that best fits the observations." I agree. That is not what I said. I said it better explains the motion of the planets because there are natural laws that dictate these motions. The planets don't have a choice, which is what "non-contingent" means. you have not identified a natural law or scientific principle that would dictate cumulative random changes producing anything other than the expected massive purposeless disorder that known natural laws would dictate.
"I'm not sure why you think it's unbelievable that random mutations could result in lower entropy (in this context I presume you mean something like 'ordered complexity' when you talk about low entropy)." I don't know how many times, or ways, I can say it: I see no natural law, or force, or scientific principle that would permit such a thing. The fact that there are examples of contingent, i.e., accidental, beneficial mutations does not change the fact that for evolution to be true there would have to be a scientific principle that dictates non-contingent natural behavior. I know you disagree with this, but it is my view. And, I suspect it is your view in every other area of science besides evolution.
"Most mutations are not more ordered or more beneficial, which is because in a random change an increase in entropy (and consequently a less ordered, less-beneficial state) is more likely." I agree. In fact, very, very, very few are. And this is to be expected by random, contingent change.
"But this isn't the same as lower entropy here being impossible." I agree. but the fact that random change can occasionally result in a beneficial mutation when the scientifically expected result would be a non-beneficial increase in entropy is why the anomalies are not explained by any natural law, but are surprise coincidences. I cannot believe a theory based on surprise coincidences among trillions and trillions of expected disordered mutational changes is a good basis for explaining life forms today.
"But by the natural laws of natural selection ..." Natural selection is not a "natural law" but does behave according to natural laws. We agreed it is merely a passive filter, doing what any filter would do, consistent with natural laws of nature. You keep wanting to bring in natural selection as a secret sauce, but we are beyond that. The statement you agreed to in the beginning of this round of emails does not include natural selection as a factor.
"Decreases in entropy thus become inevitable given enough time and individuals experiencing mutations." This is nothing more than wishful thinking. It is not a scientific statement. In no other area of science would such a notion be met with anything but ridicule. I consider it a statement of faith.
Thanks! I understand your position. Again, I simply disagree with it and believe it is not founded on scientific principles. Specifically, again, in my view your position requires known natural laws to be circumvented, and does not have any natural laws commending it. And as long as you want to believe natural selection somehow rescues a flawed theory by causing natural laws to be ignored or circumvented, or new natural laws invented, our discussion is over. But, again, that's OK. I am not trying to convince you, I am simply trying to understand your position. I get it now.
Thanks!
Roddy
test
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how random mutation and natural selection work together. I implore you to look into the Library of Babel project, which aims to contain every possible combination of letters and spaces. This means every known book, sentence, and possible written paragraph exists somewhere in this library. The randomly generated combinations are essentially random mutations. Now let's imagine you were selecting for only the combinations that made words, thus removing the gibberish. Each word generated would have been generated through random chance, and natural selection (the filter you refer to) removed stuff that isn't a word. It would be much easier to generate a sensible sentence through this process. You also brought up the gambler's fallacy, to this we can liken evolution to Yatzee. Rolling 5 dice with the same number is low, and if you were to keep rolling all 5 dice hoping the next roll would give you the desired result you'd be a fool. But let's say you roll 5 dice, then remove every dice that is not a 6. This is random mutation (the roll) and natural selection (removing dice). It would be very easy using this process to get to 5 dice that all have a 6. You could even go further, if you continued this process for years and years you'd end up with thousands of dice that say 6, a completely impossible result if you were rolling all those dice all at once every time hoping they somehow all land on 6. Thus each new element added (the next dice or letter in the library of babel) is produced through random chance, while the previous working result is retained (the previous 6s you kept or the previous words) and natural selection refines the random result by removing anything that is not viable (any dice not a 6 or letter that would be gibberish). Through these processes together complex changes can arise through purely random processes.