Speciation marches on...

[Primula Baggins]

Logic tells me that lineages would branch into failure far more often than into success, given that if you disrupt a working system you are usually unlikely to disrupt it into something that works better. Most mutations make things worse. (I've been spending several months editing a text that covers many sadly common birth defects in clinical detail.)

It's just that in the long run, examining evidence spanning millions of years, we see more evidence of the ones that made things better. Those are the ones that survived to create a fossil record. The others, well, died.

(Have to also wave a hand to Anthy's statement, speaking as a Christian who accepts evolution as fact; if there is a God and we accept natural laws as real, obviously whatever that God does within the universe is done via those laws. There is nothing irrational about that. It's God playing by God's own rules . . . if you see God as having made the rules. I tend in fact to believe that God set the rules of the game we're all playing and is not sticking a finger in to influence the outcome; just to help us handle it.)

[Griffon64]

(I know that officially lowers my IQ in many of your books, but there you go)

Anthy! You are doing it again. It pains me, it really does, that you imagine us putting you down in such way. Or any way.

I don't want to osgiliate this thread too much, but Anthy is not the only person who has felt that way at this site. I myself have seen comments that I could easily understand making people feel that way. So please don't imply that it is an irrational reaction, because it is not.

Thanks for mentioning that, V. I completely agree with you. For one, I've often felt like Anth, too. It isn't irrational; it actually kinda hurts and makes me, at least, kind of gun shy about posting thoughts sometimes. It isn't nice when people you thought were pleasant online friends mocks you and your beliefs and thoughts, no matter how indirectly. Especially when it is a blanket statement / stereotype. Those may seem like they shouldn't matter, being so non-specific, but somehow they matter more - like the person making them never cared to get to know you or something. You're just a generic item, stuffed under "all" - they've never bothered to notice that you fit the criteria but are not dumb ... or have they been thinking all along that you are? That kind of thing.

And I also agree with Anth, word for word . to anyone who thinks that makes me a dumb conservative.

I find this subject really interesting and am glad River posted about it. It certainly seem logical that there would be many species that vanished without a trace, exactly because the fossil record is incomplete.

For instance - is it possible there are bones underneath the Sahara, buried in sand - not fossils yet and possibly not ever, but extinct species? Where else? On that topic ... how does one discover fossilization in progress? Are there good candidate spots on earth right now? I know fossils sometimes form in sediment, but are another conditions good for that? And is it ethical to disturb them instead of leaving them to finish up fossilizing for life forms millions of years from now to examine?

Anyway, thoughts wandering - time for bed!

[nerdanel]

Liberal agnostic person who accepts the theory of evolution, here. I'm perfectly open (as I've posted before) to the idea that if there is a god, that god created the evolutionary process. I just am completely uncomfortable declaring that there is such a god, and feel completely unable to relate to those who accept that concept with certainty. However, that's not the same thing as viewing anyone who feels differently as having a lower IQ, mocking them, calling them dumb, etc.

[anthriel]

Nel, I feel totally comfortable with people who do not accept the idea of a creator. I get the idea of asking questions, and I think it is incredibly healthy to do so.

But I'll stand by my statement that when one does state that one believes in a creator and a creation, there are those who will question one's general intelligence for such a belief. That's just a fact. Not self-effacing behavior on my part, not this time, although I understand that I do have a habit of that (I'm working on it!). In this case, my paranthetical comment (while perhaps needlessly provocative, I'll ponder on that) was based on posts made on this very board. Believing in a creator is seen as proof of a repressed intelligence quotient, by some posters. It's just flat true.

And River the Thread Starter, I apologize if I made you uncomfortable by bringing up the concept of evolution vs. creation in Your Thread, but I will not apologize for doing so... it was the elephant in the room. You guys were all dancing around it by arguing about people who will accept micro but not macro evolution, and the like. There was an underlying discussion going on there, and I thought my comments germane to that discussion.

If there are elephants, we need to address them. They take up a lot of room in a thread.

[Primula Baggins]

Well said, Anth.

[nerdanel]

But I'll stand by my statement that when one does state that one believes in a creator and a creation, there are those who will question one's general intelligence for such a belief. That's just a fact.

This is very true. I will admit, with apologies, that after moving past the clear-headed faith of my youth (first Catholicism, then - without much pause - Judaism), I too questioned the intelligence of those who retained a particular belief about the nature of a deity, within the context of a specific religious tradition. Any religious tradition, including the Judaism towards which I've long felt affection.

This actually persisted until I was 22 (so, for 3-4 years) - until I met the most dazzlingly intelligent person I've ever met. I've never seen anything like it - someone who can speak with such fluency about the sciences, math, languages, classical music, religions (both his, and others), gourmet foods, history, world cultures, you name it. Nerd that I am, it left me a bit starry-eyed. And he is ... quietly, firmly, forcefully ... a Catholic who makes no apologies for his faith (or to his faith, where his own identity is one that the leaders of his faith denounce).

I spent hours wrestling with this question, of how someone so intelligent - far more intelligent than I could ever hope to be - could accept beliefs that felt foreign and inexplicable and incorrect to me. The furthest that I have come in answering this question is that religious faith must be consistent with the highest intelligence imaginable - and if I don't understand how that is possible, it must be my own inability to understand and nothing more. Of the many lessons I've learned from this person's presence in my life, this is one of the clearest. Perhaps others who question the intelligence of religious people will have the opportunity to meet someone as intelligent and spiritual as my friend.

[River]

My issue/fear, and what I would prefer we steer away from, is that this thread would become a forum for yet another tiresome science vs. religion debate that drives people into taking positions that trivialize both. To claim one must choose between science or religion is just plain false. It is not a dichotomy. Making it so in this day and age is an odd American throwback to the Renaissance. There's so much noise that makes it seem that way that lots of people in the US get confused on that score (myself very much included but as I got more and more immersed in science I realized just how idiotic the whole debate, as it is usually framed, is) and I wish we could get our collective heads dug out on that score. I did not open this thread up for that, nor did I open it up to mock or strut or what-have-you. I just wanted to share an incredibly cool and even more incredibly rare observation.

I quit religion for many reasons but my study of science wasn't one of them. In fact, I quit the one before getting super serious about the other. And I know many scientists who are devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, and Wiccans. I know just as many who'd calls themselves as atheist, agnostic, or Pastafarian. It seems to me that those who can't manage to reconcile the two are a minority that make an obnoxious amount of noise. The fact is, science and religion complement each other. Science can explain how the world works in a manner that allows us to do things like build rockets and lasers and look at molecules with atomic resolution. There is beauty in that, and awe. The devout among the scientists will say they are getting a glimpse of the divine through their work. I myself find enough awe without a god behind it all, but that's just me. The flipside is, while science does a fantastic job of explaining the nuts and bolts and mechanics of our world, it is very unsatisfactory at giving us answers as to why we're here (because we could be), what our purpose is (reproducing; the purpose of all life is to reproduce), and how we should live our lives (so we can raise healthy offspring). The comments in parantheses are the answers you get form science. I'm not altogether in love with them either. But religion, and other flavors of philosophy, can offer us answers that are much more satisfying to the soul. I believe in that, by the way, and I do so knowing full well that my reasons for doing so don't pass empirical muster...but if we had good empirical proof of the existence of souls we wouldn't need belief now would we?

[Primula Baggins]

And that is brilliantly said, River.

To claim one must choose between science or religion is just plain false. It is not a dichotomy.

Words to live by, and I am one of many people who do.

In my mind the universe is just more glorious because it's a feast for our minds: challenging, puzzling, infuriating, drawing us onward, rewarding us with insight and beauty and complication on complication. And never tricking us: our eyes and our minds and our understanding and imagination all together are capable of making sense of it, if only we work hard enough and honestly enough.

I believe that that is exactly what God intended. But it's equally glorious if your view leaves God out. Just . . . for me, not as personal; not as meaningful.

[yovargas]

But I'll stand by my statement that when one does state that one believes in a creator and a creation, there are those who will question one's general intelligence for such a belief.

While that is plainly true of segments of the general population, I did not think it was true of our posters. I can't recall such thoughts being expressed here and it's disappointing to think it has been. I'd like to see such thoughts pointed out and addressed going forward.

[anthriel]

But I'll stand by my statement that when one does state that one believes in a creator and a creation, there are those who will question one's general intelligence for such a belief.

While that is plainly true of segments of the general population, I did not think it was true of our posters. I can't recall such thoughts being expressed here and it's disappointing to think it has been. I'd like to see such thoughts pointed out and addressed going forward.

Well, I haven't been around here a whole lot lately. I have clear memory on many occasions of such comments here on the board, but it may be unfair to bring it here when perhaps THIS population has moved past such commentary.

I will try to be more brave about.... gosh, the only word I can think of is "challenging", and that is so not in my basic personality that I wince when thinking of doing it... but challenging those comments if I see them again. Yegads. This halo optional stuff is hard.

And River: Wow. I'm going to reread THAT post many, many times. VERY well said. I'm kind of glad I osgiliated your thread, if it helped generate commentary like that. Wow!

[axordil]

I try to find the smartest people around to disagree with, personally. Makes it more of a challenge.

[Dave_LF]

Logic tells me that lineages would branch into failure far more often than into success, given that if you disrupt a working system you are usually unlikely to disrupt it into something that works better. Most mutations make things worse. (I've been spending several months editing a text that covers many sadly common birth defects in clinical detail.)

It's true that at an individual level, most mutations are either silent or harmful. But at a population level, in order to get to the point where speciation can occur in the first place, the population in question must already have been at least moderately successful.

I think there's another reason to expect most new species to fail, though, and that's that speciation usually occurs in populations that are already in trouble. The classic example is a small, isolated population that gradually drifts away from its cousins elsewhere due to lack of contact (as in River's original article). But small, isolated populations are already at risk purely due to their smallness and isolatedness. Another time you see speciation is when environmental conditions change such that previously-evolved genes are no longer as ideal as they once were. But fish-out-of-water populations like this are also already in trouble, whether they speciate or not.

Speciation is always a risk. Even if the fledgling species has a whole host of superior new genes, by speciating it's still cutting itself off from the rest of the population and thus losing numbers and access to other genes. The decision is very much like "do I stay here with this mess and try to make things better, or do I just cut my losses and move on?". Or "do I stick with this job, or do I quit and try to start my own business". Sometimes there's nothing to lose because you're already cut off/fired, or because the mess/job is so screwed up it will only consume you if you stick around, but in those cases you're at risk no matter what you do.

[samaranth]

Very interesting article River. I am not in any way a scientist, but it seems to me that having two populations of finch in such a confined location is a little like having a test tube case of nature pushing a species inexorably into extinction.

Thanks for posting.

[Lidless]

Speciation is always a risk. Even if the fledgling species has a whole host of superior new genes, by speciating it's still cutting itself off from the rest of the population and thus losing numbers and access to other genes. The decision is very much like "do I stay here with this mess and try to make things better, or do I just cut my losses and move on?". Or "do I stick with this job, or do I quit and try to start my own business". Sometimes there's nothing to lose because you're already cut off/fired, or because the mess/job is so screwed up it will only consume you if you stick around, but in those cases you're at risk no matter what you do.

We see this all the time even in human groupings. Political parties, friends at school, countries, and even TORC / B77 / HOF.

[axordil]

The difference being that at some level--not always conscious--the human groups choose to break up/regroup. Although even there chance plays a part. Timing and context can result in identical actions having very different outcomes, for finches or people.

[WampusCat]

I think that people generally think of Creationism as the belief in a literal 6-day event a few thousand years ago. That is not the same as believing in God as the ultimate Cause and Creator and evolution as the tool (which is my belief as well).

[Frelga]

IAWWC.

Another time you see speciation is when environmental conditions change such that previously-evolved genes are no longer as ideal as they once were. But fish-out-of-water populations like this are also already in trouble, whether they speciate or not.

Exactly. The tails of the normal curve are thin for a reason - those are usually not the traits that lead to successful procreation. Until the environment changes in a way that suddenly makes the outliers more successful than the "norm".

I saw a fascinating documentary that touched on that. It talked about African elephants who are being hunted into extinction for their tusks. Normally, tusks are a very useful adaptation for the elephant. However, there are some elephants who are born tuskless, and that keeps them from being hunted. So now there is apparently a growing population of tuskless elephants.

[River]

Life exists on such thin margins...

We're talking about speciation as if it is a conscious choice a population makes but really it isn't. It's more of something that was forced by circumstances. A population somehow gets itself split by geography. Selective pressures change and the traits that were maladaptive are suddenly a good idea. I guess that sometimes these changes can be subtle - the previously bad trait gains a wee but significant survival advantage (like the tuskless elephants) under the new conditions. And other times these changes can be catastrophic and to the survivors go the spoils. That's what we'll likely see in the forests currently afflicted with pine beetles and bat colonies ravaged by white nose syndrome. Something will survive. Whether there will be enough for a rebound is an open question.

I suppose the better question is how life succeeds at all. Because obviously it did, with wonderous diversity under an incredible range of conditions (you should see where they've been finding microbes these days!).

I'm kind of glad I osgiliated your thread, if it helped generate commentary like that. Wow!

Glad it was appreciated because I found writing it exhausting and nerve-wracking.

[halplm]

I don't have a problem with anything anyone has said in this thread... and I have run the full spectrum of creation vs evolution debate, from arguing it was non-scientific anti-religious bigotry, to trying to argue for a scientific view of creation...

I think the problem with equating "IQ" and disagreement with evolution, is a simple matter of the fact that evolution is a difficult thing to understand, as any complex science is, and it does seem to contradict the understanding religious (I'm speaking specifically of Christians for the moment) people have of our origins.

This is the fault of many people, scientists, religious teachers, and anti-religious teachers (for lack of a better term) who like to use science to argue against religion. But the end result is people trying to paint others as either arrogant or ignorant... which is actually true of many...which makes the characterizations easier.

Interestingly, an episode of a new show on the sci fi channel makes an extremely good analogy of why this is a problem. In the show "Warehouse 13" the set of regents who are in charge of the most powerful objects and secrets in the world, are a set of ordinary people including for example, a waitress. When the extremely intelligent "scientist" character expresses shock at this arrangement, the response is simple.

John Adams was a farmer. Abraham Lincoln was a small town lawyer. Plato... Socrates were teachers. Jesus was a carpenter. To equate judgment and wisdom with occupation is at best... insulting.

The ability to understand the complex science that is mutation and evolution, does not give us the answers to our origin in a spiritual sense, just as religious history and teaching does not tell us how human biology has arrived at its current place.

The observations River started this thread to talk about are extremely interesting and exciting to discuss for people interested in the science involved, and for anyone else interested in interesting things .

The only problems arise when people (usually not the ones interested in the science), say "look, this is proof evolution works the way we've all been saying, which proves creationists are ignorant wackos." OR, when the reaction to the science is people who say "look, these scientists are trying to say our beliefs are ignorant and wrong, and that makes them evil and anti-religion."

Neither is correct, of course, and we'd all be be a lot happier if we could recognize when our words can be hurtful even if our opinions are not contradictory and we know it.

The micro vs macro evolution argument is really absurd IMHO, although I can admit to having participated myself. It is an attempt to create a point of view outside of science that is acceptable to people who have religious beliefs they feel don't mesh, while not being scientific at all...

The simple fact of the matter is that evolution happens, but knowing that, and knowing how much it happens, how it happens, and why... is all amazing in furthering our understanding of life... but doesn't tell us everything. Any real scientist will admit that of course...

It also doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of any given story of creation that I know of... although it can certainly improve our possible understanding of those stories... in some sense anyway, even if it's not scientific.

And I've rambled on for too long... sorry if I'm not making any sense... And sorry to River for continuing the side-topic...

[yovargas]

Are you gonna start a new habit of making posts I can't argue against? Cuz...two in a row...it's kinda freaking me out.