Descent with Modification misrepresentation

Darwin defined “evolution as “descent with modification”. But modification of what? The messy mix of DNA in sexual reproduction is not modification of anything. Two become three in sexual reproduction while one becomes two in mitosis and budding. No parent is being modified. Either way, descent by definition is the creation of new entities. Modification by definition is the same one entity before and after. The combination “descent with modification” is simply incoherent. Is this just an unfortunate linguistic error that hides a real process? Could this apply to populations instead? Populations change, but they do not descend – just individual members do. OK then, “descent with modification” is just a pleasant but otherwise incoherent soundbite. So what? That is not right either. Population changes happen – everyone and their dog knows that. Yet that is not a substitute for “evolution” which claims much more. The essence of “evolution” are extreme claims like “fishes turn into reptiles”, “reptiles into birds” and “monkeys into humans” among many others. These claims go well beyond ‘populations may change’. Can we confirm any of those? Of course not. Temporary, limited, reversible and inconsequential changes do not qualify as “evolution”. Substituting one for the other is simply swindling – the modus operandi in “evolution”. Still, let us be as accommodative as possible and ask the internet oracle for examples of “descent with modification”. Maybe there is something to it despite all logic and observations. Nothing. Just examples of change that do not go as far as “evolution” (Galapagos finches), groupings of fossils that cannot be confirmed to be related, adaptations that are supposed to represent “evolution” (another trick) and reiterations of the dogma. In conclusion, “descent with modification” is at best a pretentious way of saying ‘populations change’ which is trivial and not enough to affirm “evolution”. A trickster like Darwin should have lost right there and then all credibility.

171 thoughts on “Descent with Modification misrepresentation

  1. Darwin posited the simple to complex model. Do you agree with this model? What is the basis of this assertion? How do we go from simple to complex based on a replicating mechanism without a mechanism that can assess and change?

  2. The combination “descent with modification” is simply incoherent.

    If you are thinking that it is logically incoherent, you may have a point.

    However, natural language is not logic. Natural language is rich with metaphor, allusion, analogy. Natural language uses hints. And because people share the same reality, the usually get the hints.

    So most people do understand “descent with modification” and that means it isn’t really incoherent.

    The essence of “evolution” are extreme claims like “fishes turn into reptiles”, “reptiles into birds” and “monkeys into humans” among many others.

    Hmm, no. You must be thinking of the creationists version of evolution. Anyone who actually understands evolution knows that you won’t see those extreme changes.

    Just examples of change that do not go as far as “evolution” (Galapagos finches) …

    Those small changes, such as seen with the Galapagos finches, are the essence of evolution. It is a matter of small changes that accumulate over very long periods of time.

  3. In conclusion, “descent with modification” is at best a pretentious way of saying ‘populations change’ which is trivial and not enough to affirm “evolution”.

    I’ll try and make things simple for you. There are three basic processes that happen in evolution.

    1. Adaptation, where the genetic makeup of a population varies due to selective pressures in the immediate environment.

    2. Speciation, where part of a population becomes separated (physically or otherwise) from the gene pool and variation, drift, and selection in both populations result in genetic isolation – two gene pools.

    3. Extinction, where a species fails to survive, often where environmental factors change too rapidly for a population to adapt.

    A trickster like Darwin should have lost right there and then all credibility.

    Charles Darwin spent five years from 1831 to 1836 on the Beagle as ship’s naturalist and the rest of his life working on his discoveries and developing his theory of natural selection. Calling him a trickster reflects badly on nonlin.

  4. Darwin was completely unaware of DNA and recombination, so it is hardly an issue that that adds a layer. It was never about individuala in any case, but about species and their trends.

    As a definition, it is perfectly reasonable. Within a lineage, it either happens, as defined, or it does not.

  5. Every creationist and other flavor of Darwin denier should be required to successfully complete a course in comparative vertebrate anatomy as a prerequisite to participating in the “evolution debate,” if for no other reason than to disabuse them of the “fish turning into reptiles,” etc. cliche. BTW, you skipped amphibians……

  6. colewd: Darwin posited the simple to complex model. Do you agree with this model?

    Not with his particular model. Because it simply doesn’t work. But that’s another story. I figured “evolutionistas” cannot follow multiple ideas so better break the whole argument into small chunks. Like this one.

  7. Neil Rickert: If you are thinking that it is logically incoherent, you may have a point.

    Of course I have a point. Thanks for acknowledging.

    Neil Rickert: However, natural language is not logic. Natural language is rich with metaphor, allusion, analogy. Natural language uses hints. And because people share the same reality, the usually get the hints.

    În mythology yes. In science no. Unless you admit “evolution” is a myth, precision is required.

    Do you understand more than the trivial “populations change”? If so, what and why? On what basis?

    Neil Rickert: It is a matter of small changes that accumulate over very long periods of time.

    That’s the thing, population changes do not accumulate over time. Why would they? Where is the evidence? We had a long discussion on the “divergence of character “myth.

  8. Alan Fox: I’ll try and make things simple for you. There are three basic processes that happen in evolution.

    At least that’s the theory. But is it true?

    And can you refrain from going on tangents all the time? Back to this post, do you have any objections to these specific thoughts?

    Isn’t amazing how you come up with a “featured” post just to prevent the truth from coming on top? Isn’t that another trick?

  9. chuckdarwin: Every creationist and other flavor of Darwin denier should be required to successfully complete a course in comparative vertebrate anatomy as a prerequisite to participating in the “evolution debate,”

    So do you have any objections? If yes, state them clearly.

    Just out of curiosity and for future discussions, what exactly do you think comparative anatomy is showing? Please don’t tell me it supports “evolution” because it just doesn’t.

  10. Allan Miller: It was never about individuala in any case, but about species and their trends.

    Like I said, “populations change”. It’s trivial and not at all “evolution”. There is no implicit trend in “modification”.

    You’re not finding any fault in what I wrote. As much as you wished. How is that not a clear case of misrepresentation?

  11. Nonlin.org,

    How then do you explain, just as a simple example, homology of the forelimb of all tetrapods, i.e., amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, which all exhibit the same skeletal structure? What alternative to common descent explains the forelimb skeletal homology of these vertebrates?

  12. Nonlin.org: At least that’s the theory. But is it true?

    There’s more to it than that but I hope I’ve stated the core tenets adequately. And of course, as Allan Miller points out, Darwin was unaware of genetics, chromosomes, DNA. The theory of evolution has evolved since publication of Origin. Is it true? It certainly fits the evidence. There are no rival explanations for what we observe.

  13. Allan Miller: It was never about individuals in any case, but about species and their trends.

    I don’t think it’s as simple as that. The relationships between species, breeding populations and individuals varies considerably depending on the organisms in question. Mammals and birds are regarded as higher organism mainly because of how they are seen as separate individuals. Those who work in Lenski’s lab on e coli are not required to adhere to the same ethical standards regarding these organisms as anyone in a lab working on primates or even mice. Emotions are qualities of individual higher animals but not of individual prokaryotes.

    Has it always been a feature of reality that combinations of chemicals could have arisen in such complex ways in which to make individual self-awareness possible? I think this has always been present in the material world, if not in actuality, in potential. There is nothing within chemistry itself that makes it inevitable that the existence of material substances would ever have produced self-aware life. Living systems use chemistry but they are not produced by chemistry. The belief in life emerging from pure chemistry is not so different from the old belief in spontaneous generation but with a greatly extended time frame.

  14. Nonlin.org: Back to this post, do you have any objections to these specific thoughts?

    Your remarks in the OP are incoherent but your stubborn inability to grasp the actual theory of evolution as it is generally understood makes it pointless to argue with you.

  15. Nonlin.org,

    Like I said, “populations change”. It’s trivial and not at all “evolution”. There is no implicit trend in “modification”.

    There is no particular trend, implicit or explicit, in evolution either. It is change.

    You’re not finding any fault in what I wrote. As much as you wished. How is that not a clear case of misrepresentation?

    Big fat non sequitur alert. “You’re not finding fault with anything I wrote so you’re misrepresenting me”. The fuck? You haven’t got any better at this ‘debate’ lark since last we spoke.

  16. CharlieM,

    I don’t think it’s as simple as that

    ’tis.

    The rest of your post is about ethics and OoL, and not really relevant. The inability to distinguish evolutionary processes and origins is depressingly common.

  17. Nonlin.org,

    Isn’t amazing how you come up with a “featured” post just to prevent the truth from coming on top? Isn’t that another trick?

    This is a quite hilarious piece of victimhood.
    Yes, we’re all trying to suppress your laser-like insights, by publishing them and having comments highlight rhe existence of the OP in the sidebar.

    Have a lie down. .

  18. Alan Fox: There are no rival explanations for what we observe.

    To me, this is the single most frustrating thing about ID, creationism and whatever other anti-Darwinian factions exist out there–they have no alternatives to evolutionary theory. Nothing. For example, the entire Discovery Institute agenda is simply one sustained 30-year attempt to take down evolution and trash Darwin. The past couple years, the attacks on Darwin have escalated to the point of an almost pathological obsession……

  19. chuckdarwin,

    To me, this is the single most frustrating thing about ID, creationism and whatever other anti-Darwinian factions exist out there–they have no alternatives to evolutionary theory. Nothing. For example, the entire Discovery Institute agenda is simply one sustained 30-year attempt to take down evolution and trash Darwin. The past couple years, the attacks on Darwin have escalated to the point of an almost pathological obsession

    The alternative to Darwins single tree is multiple trees with greater then one single point of origin.

  20. chuckdarwin: The past couple years, the attacks on Darwin have escalated to the point of an almost pathological obsession……

    I have to disagree.

    It has always been a pathological obsession. So that isn’t really any escalation.

    Yes, in their first few years the DI tried to pretend that they were doing science. So their obsession was partially hidden. Now it is out in the open.

  21. colewd: The alternative to Darwins single tree is multiple trees with greater then one single point of origin.

    Did all of those multiple trees exist at the time of Noah’s ark? Or were some of them magically poofed into existence more recently?

    If you want them all to exist by the time of Noah, then you are giving Ken Ham a headache in trying to fit all of those on the ark. If they were magic poofed after Noah, then Noah’s story looses much of its relevance.

    Or maybe you accept that the Noah story is just fictional (an ancient fable), in which case that might be a point of agreement.

  22. colewd,

    The alternative to Darwins single tree is multiple trees with greater then one single point of origin.

    So you accept evolution?

  23. Neil Rickert,

    Or maybe you accept that the Noah story is just fictional (an ancient fable), in which case that might be a point of agreement.

    I consider 3 possibilities.

    1. The arch story is a story to make a point and not history.

    2. Creation is continuous.

    3. The flood was local.

  24. Allan Miller,

    So you accept evolution?

    Hi Allan
    Good to hear from you.
    I accept population genetics and that is certainly part of evolutionary theory. Populations change over time and we have tools to model that change.

  25. colewd,

    But you also appear to accept that this is a branching process, with common descent, if you say ‘trees’ rather than ‘sticks’.

  26. colewd: I consider 3 possibilities.

    1. The arch story is a story to make a point and not history.

    A possibility?
    Good grief! Ten seconds reflection on the practicalities should cure you of that.

    2. Creation is continuous.

    If that were so, it must be happening now. But there’s no evidence of any change in the total amount of matter and energy in the known universe. All evidence points to it being fixed for the lifetime of this universe.

    3. The flood was local.

    Local floods happen regularly and with climate change and sea level rising, things will get worse. But there’s no physical possibility there was ever a global flood, let alone any evidence for it. Maybe a flood in ancient Mesopotamia was inspiration for some flood myths. There’s no evidence for “The Flood”. It’s just a story.

  27. Alan Fox:
    “CharlieM: I don’t think it’s as simple as that.”

    Alan Fox: It really is. Individuals don’t evolve; populations do.

    You are stating your secular belief as a fact. There are many other people in the world who hold a belief in reincarnation involving the evolution of individuals. The answer to which one of these positions is correct does not alter the fact that they are both belief systems.

  28. Allan Miller: CharlieM,

    “CharlieM: I don’t think it’s as simple as that”

    Allan Miller: ’tis.

    Don’t you think there is vast difference between the way in which breeding populations of E. coli are governed and how populations of humans are governed?

    Allan Miller: The rest of your post is about ethics and OoL, and not really relevant. The inability to distinguish evolutionary processes and origins is depressingly common.

    It’s all relevant when thinking about the evolution of consciousness. Descent involves movement from a higher position to a lower one.

  29. chuckdarwin:
    “Alan Fox: There are no rival explanations for what we observe.”

    chuckdarwin: To me, this is the single most frustrating thing about ID, creationism and whatever other anti-Darwinian factions exist out there–they have no alternatives to evolutionary theory.

    An alternative to the blind expansion from the simple to the complex is the possibility of the descent or condensation from the archetype to the more restrictive particular. Instead of a tree of life we could picture a root system with a tap root and many lateral roots branching off and subject to natural selection through which they become constricted. Darwinian evolution turned on its head.

  30. Neil Rickert:
    “colewd: The alternative to Darwins single tree is multiple trees with greater then one single point of origin.”

    Neil Rickert: Did all of those multiple trees exist at the time of Noah’s ark? Or were some of them magically poofed into existence more recently?

    If you want them all to exist by the time of Noah, then you are giving Ken Ham a headache in trying to fit all of those on the ark. If they were magic poofed after Noah, then Noah’s story looses much of its relevance.

    Or maybe you accept that the Noah story is just fictional (an ancient fable), in which case that might be a point of agreement.

    One way of looking at this story is that the ark represents the archetype and the animals are all the forms that are contained within the archetype. In my opinion the story is not to be taken literally, it is picturesque image which has the deeper meaning held within it. The ark or archetype is the container which holds all forms within it.

  31. The inverted tree

    In Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, the cosmic tree is represented as a huge inverted tree also known as inverted tree of life or upside down tree. It is a symbol that the entire universe originates from a single source. The roots of the tree are in the skies. Wisdom and creative energy is dispensed to earth through the branches.

    Also the arbor inversa as mentioned here.

  32. CharlieM,

    Don’t you think there is vast difference between the way in which breeding populations of E. coli are governed and how populations of humans are governed?

    In terms of what evolution is, not so much. In diploid sexual organisms, there is the added layer of recombination, and there are issues with defining a ‘population’ in real world applications of nonrecombining haploid models.

    Allan Miller: It’s all relevant when thinking about the evolution of consciousness.

    Which I wasn’t.

    Descent involves movement from a higher position to a lower one.

    Ah, good old semantics. So if I descend from my grandfather, I’m lower than him? No. There is no hierarchic or positional implication in this usage. “The Descent of Man” isn’t about us falling off our lofty perch!

  33. CharlieM,

    You are stating your secular belief as a fact.

    No. Individuals definitely do not evolve in the sense of the definition; it is populations. Belief might come into it in terms of whether or not it actually happens, but we are not expressing belief in the definition: that is what evolution means in conventional terms.

  34. Alan Fox,

    If that were so, it must be happening now. But there’s no evidence of any change in the total amount of matter and energy in the known universe. All evidence points to it being fixed for the lifetime of this universe.

    Top 15 new species

  35. Maybe instead of “descent with modification” Darwin should have called his theory the “offspring differ very slightly from parents” theory.

  36. CharlieM,

    I prefer to look at common descent the way geneticist Craig Venter does. While Darwin’s tree of common descent continues to be the best model for biotic diversity, our research in taxonomy and genetics has caused the tree to look increasingly more like a tangled bush. The basic structure for the tree of life is still there, it has just gotten immensely more complex….

  37. Flint,

    It’s a bugger being eternally enslaved by the linguistic choices of someone from 164 years ago though, innit? It’s as if usage never… evolves.

  38. chuckdarwin,

    Ugh! Replacing a tree with a bush changes nothing! They grow and branch in much the same way.

    I think reticulate models are somewhat overplayed, though. The prime process, throughout, is vertical descent. Retrospective analysis yields many instances of inter-clade gene transfer, but the overarching process remains vertical. That is, indeed, how we’re able to recognise the exceptions.

  39. Flint: If the 15 new species are made of a new unique kind of matter, this would be quite interesting.

    If you’re having a bet with Bill that the chocolate frog is not, in fact, made of chocolate, I’ll take a piece of that action!

  40. Alan Fox: Local floods happen regularly and with climate change and sea level rising, things will get worse.

    Not likely worse than the end of the recent ice age.

  41. colewd: I accept population genetics and that is certainly part of evolutionary theory. Populations change over time and we have tools to model that change.

    This is just a red herring. There’s a pretty major non sequitur from “population genetics is not sufficient to account for major evolutionary changes” to “we are rationally entitled to posit a supernatural being that guides the history of life on Earth.”

    For that matter, one can completely reject population genetics as having anything at all to do with evolution — which is more or less my own position — without that having any bearing at all on theism, atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc.

    CharlieM: The answer to which one of these positions is correct does not alter the fact that they are both belief systems.

    Sure, except one of them is true and the other one isn’t.

  42. Kantian Naturalist,

    For that matter, one can completely reject population genetics as having anything at all to do with evolution — which is more or less my own position

    Hmm. Did you try telling Joe Felsenstein his life’s work had nothing to do with evolution?

  43. Allan Miller,

    Hmm. Did you try telling Joe Felsenstein his life’s work had nothing to do with evolution?

    Much of my work has been on inferring phylogenies, which is definitely on evolution. As for trying to tell me that population genetics has nothing to do with this, sure, try to tell me that. Go ahead and try.

    I will just yawn and ignore the statement.

  44. petrushka: Not likely worse than the end of the recent ice age.

    How are you assessing likelihood? I’m a bit dubious about prediction based on the pattern of past events.

    Ice Age

  45. Allan Miller: CharlieM,

    “CharlieM: Don’t you think there is vast difference between the way in which breeding populations of E. coli are governed and how populations of humans are governed?”

    Allan Miller: In terms of what evolution is, not so much. In diploid sexual organisms, there is the added layer of recombination, and there are issues with defining a ‘population’ in real world applications of nonrecombining haploid models.

    The dynamics of population changes over time is vastly different between humans and prokaryotes. With respect to humans individual choices play a significant role in procreation compared to E coli individuals.

    “CharlieM: It’s all relevant when thinking about the evolution of consciousness.”

    Allan Miller: Which I wasn’t.

    Well maybe you should start thinking about how the coming of individual consciousness is and will be significantly affecting the evolution of life on earth.

    “CharlieM: Descent involves movement from a higher position to a lower one.”

    Allan Miller: Ah, good old semantics. So if I descend from my grandfather, I’m lower than him? No. There is no hierarchic or positional implication in this usage. “The Descent of Man” isn’t about us falling off our lofty perch!

    Yes, it’s all about semantics. The very use of phrases such as ‘descent with modification’, or ‘down the generations’, implies movement. And it is natural for people to associate this with movement from a higher state to a lower state even if that wasn’t the intended meaning. I suspect it was used to illustrate a flow over time which is often referred to as the river of time. And we all know that rivers always flow downwards. But talk of upwards and downwards is meaningless without a referent.

    There is always a polarity involved. And with downward movement there will be a compensatory upward trend. In evolution, higher individual consciousness comes with an overall loss of vitality. If we accept that an evolutionary trajectory can be drawn from LUCA to humans, the trend points to an increase in individual awareness and a decrease in vitality. (vitality being the continuation of life measured in average offspring produced over the given period.) Vitality drops while consciousness rises.

  46. Allan Miller:
    “CharlieM: You are stating your secular belief as a fact.

    Allan Miller: No. Individuals definitely do not evolve in the sense of the definition; it is populations. Belief might come into it in terms of whether or not it actually happens, but we are not expressing belief in the definition: that is what evolution means in conventional terms.

    How would you define evolution?

Leave a Reply