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”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think we can agree that there has been movement from unity to multiplicity. The disagreement lies in how we perceive the unity at the source.
“Sure, that’s the way it’s got to be”, said he tentatively. 🙂
CharlieM,
Which changes nothing. We don’t choose which of our genes persist into the future, nor which genes we get from our ancestors. The characteristics subject to choice are a tiny subset, and last but one generation, unless the tendency to make the same choice is inherited as well. Which, as it happens, Darwin covers in Descent, albeit from a position inevitably hazy on genetics.
Maybe you should get off telling me what I should and shouldn’t have been talking about.
You are utterly obsessed by consciousness. As far as you seem concerned, it is the only interesting thing in biology: the entire arc of evolution is all about getting your sainted soul off the ground.
Others take a broader view.
The ‘descent’ part doesn’t. If you’re going to play the semantic game, you at least need to understand how these terms would be understood by a Victorian gent.
So, even armed with the intended meaning, you insist on (mis)understanding it on your own terms?
Descent with modification does it for me, as a soundbite. Though I am aware some people get a bit excitable about the ‘descent’ part, seeing things that aren’t there. 😆
I’m seeing calculations that sea levels could rise three feet by the end of the century. Let’s say that’s optimistic by an order of magnitude. Still not 300 feet.
I’m neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I think humankind will survive the next century, even if seriously inconvenienced. And sometime within the next fifty years, we will get a handle on fossil fuels.
I’m personally betting on modular nukes to supply half our energy within 50 years. But projections of technology are notoriously unreliable. I’m happy there are lots of competitive technologies in the race.
Very common design practice. Probably many other scenarios also fit. You’re just affirming the consequent which has been covered here extensively.
Which is a shame given everything we know about genetics invalidates “evolution”.
Not when you have a mental blockage anyway.
Well then, where is the fish that descended from reptiles? The reptile from bird or mammal? Prokaryote from eukaryote? And ultimately if no trend, then just noise so no transition ape to man. It’s elementary.
What a dummy… It’s Darwin’s misrepresentation from the title. Not mine.
There’s no sidebar on mobile view. Better ask. Hey Alan, why did you suddenly decide on a “featured” article? Please be as truthful as possible.
Anyway, it’s just amusing.
Melodrama makes me cry too.
Or no tree. Why not?
That would be an observable fact. If vague. And there’s no trend as Miller admitted and therefore no “theory of evolution” as it’s all just noise. And that would be wonderful.
Because… “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I might have said it before.
And how would you defend Darwin’s misrepresentation? I know. You will just yawn and ignore it. Nailed it?
Actually it was first said by Upton Sinclair, a socialist who ran a campaign for governor of California in the 1930s. And was a ground breaking “muckraker” earlier who exposed the disgusting conditions in slaughterhouses. His book led to the founding of the FDA. You know, one of the regulatory agencies that the Right hates and wants to get rid of. He was intending to expose the horrific working conditions, mostly. He ruefully said that “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
There’s enough tons of evidence that genetic changes are involved in the phenotypic changes that we see between species, that I wouldn’t bother to try to convince nonlin.org, especially having seen how nonlin.org operates.
Nonlin.org,
‘Having no particular trend’ does not mean ‘bidirectional’.
Ah. I thought your title an announcement you were going to misrepresent Darwin. Are you saying Darwin misrepresented himself? Hard to see what you think is being misrepresented.
Nonlin.org,
Ah. So the ‘censorship’ only applies to mobiles?
Nonlin.org,
When you say ‘we’, here … you’ve never struck me as someone with the slightest clue about genetics before.
I am presently on a break from the PCT, visiting Death Valley with my wife. We went to Ash Meadows, where aquifers ensure that a rich but isolated flora and fauna survives. 26 species are only known from here, including the Devil’s Hole Pupfish, which lives in an unpreposessing slot in the limestone.
My question for the skeptics here is: what process caused these species to be morphologically and genetically distinct? If not isolated populations undergoing ‘descent with modification’ from common ancestors, then what?
Nonlin.org,
Evolution can still occur without a specific ‘trend’.
So if we all pretend we agree with you, you’ll just fuck off? That would be wonderful.
I’m not prejudiced. Are you?
But does his quote apply to you?
Iow, absent the oppressive government that reaches into our pockets to pay your salary, would any person or corporation voluntarily have found your services valuable enough to support your lifestyle?
I’d love to set you straight but don’t have the time to waste. Suffice to say conditions improved in the absence of the fda in other countries, slavery is gone from countries that didn’t have the pleasure of Mr Lincoln and his devastating war, etc etc. Brush up on that “correlation is not causation” and “affirming the consequent” will you?
You see changes happening between species???
When you don’t conveniently define “species” as it suits you??? Real life examples please.
And what’s the “evolution” connection again?
And let’s stay focused: when will you address Darwin’s misrepresentation?
Really? The stock market would love that. If only it were true.
Now you know better. Apologies accepted.
Just another gap in your knowledge… Even in desktop view, the real estate value of the sidebar is lower. Hence my amusement at what should be your embarrassment …
You be the judge? Actually Darwin did not need Mendel to show him variants coexist in long term equilibrium which disproves directly “natural selection”.
You cannot start from your preferred conclusion. You must formulate at least two hypotheses. Basic.
Show your work.
The little nagging voice is in your head too. Let it loose.
Nonlin.org,
Some things are not other things
Yes. I apologise that you express yourself so poorly.
Mirrored by my amusement at your pitiful victimhood – “they hate the truth so much they moved me down slightly “.
Nonlin.org,
Yes, I’m the judge.
All variants, ever? Show your work.
Nonlin.org,
I don’t have to formulate the second hypothesis. I was asking you to. Cat got your tongue?
Evolution, whether defined as change in allele frequency or as descent with modification, implies no particular change. There is no ‘work’ to show, it’s in the definition.
That would get me in Guano.
In all the bumph you’ve been permitted to post on this site, you have not established that Charles Darwin misrepresented anything.
Further, you continue to misunderstand (could be misrepresentation, in that you do know how evolutionary theory works and pretend not to, hard to tell) evolutionary theory in the face of efforts to correct you.
This has become very tedious. I think it is a reasonable suggestion that you raise your game or fuck off.
I know plenty of people who have decided not to pass any of their genes on. If enough people in a population are making decisions such as these would that not change the genetic landscape? Don’t you think that animal and plant breeders are altering the genetic makeup of populations? And there are certain individuals who have tried, or would like to eliminate what they class as general traits of human populations.
“CharlieM: It’s all relevant when thinking about the evolution of consciousness.”
“Allan Miller: Which I wasn’t.”
“Charlie: 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.”
Allan Miller: Maybe you should get off telling me what I should and shouldn’t have been talking about.
I did not intend to tell you to write anything. It would have been better if I had written ‘could’ and not ‘should’, so I apologize for that. I was just making a suggestion about what might be of benefit for you to think over.
If it were not for consciousness there would be no conversation to have.
Thanks for telling me what I need to do. 🙂
I was merely making an observation, not arming myself to make an argument.
Fine by me. Descent with the appearance of novelty does it for me, as a soundbite.
I would also class my individual development at the cellular level as descent from a zygote, with the appearance of novelty. 🙂
CharlieM,
No. Unless there were some consistent genetic basis for the choice, they just go in the bucket with all the individuals who don’t breed for random reasons.
You were talking of the dynamics of human populations, so only the latter is relevant. And how much influence have eugenicists had? Name a characteristic we have through their efforts.
Which still does not make it the sole characteristic of interest.
Descent from a common archetype. All animals with the exception of humans have developed the forelimb in a direction that leads to one-sidedness. Humans have retained the greatest flexibility in the form of the forelimb. We only have to look at cetaceans to see how their specialization inhibits further novelty.
Duh. ALL organisms are descendants of a “common archetype.” This situation is how we get such things as genus, class, order, etc.
I don’t know what you mean by this. “All animals with the exception of humans”? Like, you know, sponges?
Do you suppose some species haven’t evolved to be more like humans because of some flaw in the theory of evolution? After all, EVERY species is TRYING to become human, and the others are all failing, right Charlie?
CharlieM,
Descent with… modification? 🤔
CharlieM,
As ye reap, so shall ye sow…
The ‘archetype’ I am referring to does not correspond to any creature or group of creatures that have ever been physically present on the earth.
I had meant to include the word ‘tetrapod’ in that statement. But as sponges have been mentioned, let’s take a quick look. We can learn a lot from those who have studied them.
For instance:
And there is this from here:
Relatively speaking, sponges are morphologically simple but genetically complex. A nice demonstration that form develops, not from the genes, but from the way that genes are used by the organism. Genes tend to be present and waiting to be utilized in the creation of novel forms.
This is not a flaw and species of animals are not trying to become human. Animal forms are shaped by their desires. For example, giant anteaters love to eat ants and their morphology is suited to that end.
But just as the flowers on a rose bush could not exist without the side stems and leaves which terminate without any further development, so self-conscious humans could not exist without the myriad of animal forms that, because of their one-sidedness have been destined not to evolved further novelty.
We have evolved as humans by not adapting to specific niches which would be a limiting factor. Compared to other vertebrates we have retained the least specialized forelimbs, the least specialized dentistry, an omnivorous diet, the ability to survive in any terrestrial environment, and so on.
I am willing to consider any counterexamples you wish to put forward.
In my opinion, the biggest jump in the evolution of earthly life is from sentient creatures governed solely by instinct to creatures that have become conscious creators who are gaining the knowledge to control their own destiny.
There is descent with modification which enables populations to adapt to the changing environment. But there is also an ascent towards increasing individual self-determination by those creatures freeing themselves from environmental and habitual constraints.
The Bible is the source of many words of wisdom.
Really? Personally, I’m glad reproduction is not an imaginary process. I find it quite enjoyable.
But does the bible actually say that? My bible must have it backwards.
Fixed that for you.
That’s because we take our niche with us wherever we go: culture (taking this in the broad sense to include language and technology). But we are as constrained by our need for culture as spiders are by their need for webs.
👍
CharlieM,
How would you go about distinguishing these processes? Talk is cheap; I can declare many things to be true without any requirement that they be so.
And much that is bollocks.
Joe Felsenstein,
A paraphrase of this frequently comes to mind when ‘discussing” with Creationists: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when he imagines his eternal soul depends on his not understanding it”.
I take it you have kids.
Which part do you enjoy? You surely haven’t experienced reproduction in its totality. Have you had the pleasure of spending months carrying an extra load inside of you, having morning sickness, contractions, etc.? 🙂
No it doesn’t say that. The phrase in the Bible has more truth to it than the backwards version.
Farmers who try to sow what they reap have a hard time of it these days. They have been losing control over what they can and can’t sow. There are rules that prevent them from sowing what they reap.
They are not even safe from prosecution when they try to sow what they reap:
How are farmers supposed to compete against the big drug companies?
The dictionary is also the source of many words of foolishness. There are – idiotic, stupid, silly, thoughtless, unwise, witless, and many more besides. 🙂
Yes we are restricted somewhat by the culture which is necessary for our well being and ultimate survival. But are you honestly trying to say that this need is as restrictive as the dependence on webs by web-building spiders?
I am glad that the culture I live in affords me a great deal more freedom than the spider who has set up home on my garden fence.
Do you think that human culture and spiders webs have both evolved equally over the past ten of twenty thousand years? Would you say you have more restrictions as to how you live your life than your ancestors living ten thousand years ago? What about asking the same question of the spider now living beside you in relation to its ancestors from ten thousand years ago?
Compare the niche of Ken Smith with that of Hillary Clinton, in what way are they equivalent?
For comparison, can you give us a short description of the niche of the average funnel-web spider and the niche of the average human?
I don’t see how the term “archetype” adds anything to Darwin’s original description of descent from a common ancestor and actually may be misleading. “Archetype” means an original pattern or model. This, in turn, implies a type of Platonic or universal design, e.g., a blueprint or schematic. Which, in turn, implies a teleological process, all of which are at odds with natural selection……
Descent with modification is a process that has been observed in populations such as Galapagos finches and peppered moth populations. Populations have little control over the direction it takes.
I class the expansion of life, as the acquisition of novelty. And any expansion of novelty which brings greater freedom from external influences I regard as an ascent. Degrees of freedom from environmental constraints can be observed by comparing extant species, their current lifestyles and how their an were assumed to have lived in the distant past.
There are many things I’ve mentioned in past posts, such as the development of heat regulation in birds and mammals which makes them less susceptible to changes in environmental temperatures.
What other species apart from humans have consciously built instruments which extend the range of the senses we have been blessed with since birth? If we consider novelty to be a defining factor of evolution then no other species line has done more to further the existence novelty into earthly evolution than our line. For good or bad, what other species has introduced such a range of novelties. Novel ways of communicating, novel ways of locomotion, novel ways of acquiring food, novel ways of dealing with various environmental conditions. Imagine a world populated solely with prokaryotes. What novelties can you think of that any one species of these organisms would bring? And what greater freedom from environmental constraints do you think extant prokaryotes have compared to their distant ancestors?