- Gradualism is the cornerstone of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution because without it, he could not justify the idea that one organism changes into another. ‘Gradualism’ equals ‘Continuity’ but also presupposes a significant change, not just variations around a static mean (regression to the mean).
- In math, a function is gradual if continuous. A continuous function has a Grade’ (Slope) at every point. If a function is not gradual (continuous), then it is Discrete and has no ‘Grade’ (Slope). A Discontinuous function is a special case of ‘Continuous over limited ranges’. Some argue that large collections of discrete points appear continuous, thus justifying gradualism. This view were acceptable if and only if the contribution of the discrete points were strictly cumulative (such as when many water molecules form water waves).
- Is Nature Gradual? No, Nature is Discrete from the most elementary particles, to molecules, cells, and organisms. New organisms are created by discrete processes and result in newborns that are measurably different from each parent while all DNA mutations are discrete events. Gregor Mendel observed the discrete nature of biology as early as 1865 in the inheritance of dominant and recessive alleles. Darwin might have learned that from Mendel’s papers sent to him, had he read and correctly interpreted the results. To be fair, Darwin’s gradualism was in line with the incorrect view of his times that considered matter a continuum. Only in the late 1800s the true discrete nature of matter started to become common knowledge. However, today everyone knows, yet the gradualism hypothesis remains central to evolution despite lacking any basis.
- The list of discrete elements in biology includes but is not limited to: atoms, molecules, biochemical reactions, DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, genes, chromosomes, organelles, cell types (pro/eukaryote), cell division (mitosis/meiosis), sex type (male/female), body organs, organ systems, and organism classification. Changes at the discrete micro level including mutations and exposure to free radicals, radiation, and misfolded proteins are not cumulative and can potentially impact the entire organism. Continuous measure such as temperature, volume and weight are not true biologic properties as these change over the life of organisms and are primarily statistical measures at population level in particular populations, environments and time.
- We classify organisms into distinct groups with little if any overlap and with significant homogeneity within the group. If Gradualism were the norm, all living animals would fill a continuous spectrum which would make their classification in various taxa completely arbitrary. Were gradualism true in time – call this vertical gradualism, then gradualism over the current living – horizontal gradualism – should also be the norm. Instead, we observe that even unicellular organisms with huge populations and short-lived generations do not occupy a biological continuum. Plant diversity over the altitude & latitude continuum is a good example of Discontinuity in Nature: as conditions change, we see a changing mix of distinct species, rather than hybrid species as would be expected if Gradualism were true. Animal territoriality is also an example of discrete successful designs dominating certain ranges and mixing with each other at range boundaries without significantly changing their characteristics.
- What about Speciation and Hybridization? And what about the Fossil Record? A certain flexibility appears built into each biological design – more in some than in others. What we call Speciation and Hybridization may in fact be no more than adaptations within these flexibility ranges. Without confirming experiments on living organisms, it is impossible to determine whether the Fossil Record shows Gradualism or instead predisposition to Gradualism prompts an incorrect interpretation of the Fossil Record.
Pro-Con Notes
Con: Individuals heights are gradual. Height is one of the characters Mendel used with his pea plants, and height at maturity is influenced by a host of loci.
Pro: Height is not a proper biologic measure because height changes all the time, not just during development and because it is arbitrarily determined. Just as well you can sort by vertical reach or eyes height (on or off tiptoes), etc. – these can be more important for survival than the standard measurement and will throw off your statistics. Also food/climate/parasites during development affect size at maturity. And when exactly is maturity?
Con: Gradualism is the rule in evolution, since different alleles usually differ in their phenotypes only marginally. Phyletic gradualism does not claim that there is an absolutely smooth spectrum of species change over time.
Pro: Alleles are not gradual as demonstrated by Mendel. Darwin decreed gradualism precisely to support “smooth spectrum of species change over time”.Where do you see gradualism when everything in biology is 100% discrete from sub-atoms to atoms, molecules, genes, chromosomes, each element of cell structure and cell process, sexes, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, dominant-recessive, etc. etc.?
Con: The fossil evidence supports gradual changes in species.
Pro: The fossil record is “evidence” in the same sense animation is “evidence” of real life events.
Con: Is the DNA of a newborn measurably different and a significant leap from a random combination of the DNA of both parents?
Pro: Yes. Darwin’s theory of inheritance was “blended characteristics” (gradualism). That is, the offspring was a “blend” of both parents. The contrary idea of discrete alleles of genes had been found and proven by Mendel that hypothesized instead that traits, such as eye color or height or flower hues, were carried by tiny particles that were inherited whole in the next generation.
Links:
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geological.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/1/l_061_01.html
The perfect Darwinian gradualism:
Wolf interbreeding with coyote leading to coywolves within one generation:
Praise the Darw!
What a conceptual mess, and this is but the first paragraph.
Gradualism is not “the cornerstone” of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It’s what would be expected of populations diverging from one another due to their natural variation and the interaction of such variation with the environment.
Darwin did not suggest that one organism changes into another. He suggested that as generations go, populations diverge from one another and formed new species. Evolution is not magical transmutation, it’s generation-to-generation divergence.
No it doesn’t. Gradualism means that the differences visible between populations as they diverge are expected to be somewhat small in magnitude. It doesn’t matter if visible changes are “continuous” or “discontinuous.”
No. It doesn’t presuppose a “significant” change. Gradualism is just about the extent of change that can be expected in a small timespan.
What a conceptual mess. I don’t even know how to parse this shit. Regression to the mean is about experimental sampling, not about what happens to actual populations as they diverge.
One paragraph, so much wrong already. Since this is the “foundation” of what follows, we know that there’s no reason to continue. At best, Nonlin is attacking a mess of a straw-man. Nothing of value to read in Nonlin’s confused rhetoric.
I took a look at the second paragraph, thinking this could not go worse. Shit! It certainly could go worse! Take this one “darwinistas”!:
Holy crap! I get nauseated trying to make sense of this shit. Nonlin goes wrong at so many levels that it gives me a headache. So, I’m not going to bother disentangling this piece of messy bullshit.
Statements like this aren’t going to win you many points from the audience or likely, many dialogue partners.
Look at the pretty analogy, people. Would you like to try it with me?
Is it meant as Pro: Gradualism, Con: Anti-Gradualism or something else? The debate motion isn’t specified for the Pro-Con Notes.
Assuming that people can get that far into the mess without already noticing that making sense is not Nonlin’s forte.
What’s that?
How do I find this natural variation in a coywolves, for example?
ETA: Or, we analysed the genomes of two related species. One has the gene responsible for the production of insulin but the other closely related animal doesn’t. And yet, the latter has neither diabetes nor high blood sugar levels…
Darwinin gradualism can be discarded…
This is unbelievably stupid (of course it is, it’s from nonlin)
How did the author of this nonsense not notice that, if all that crap was true, then the same gradualism that happens within “kinds” (whatever that shit means) or even species, would be impossible?
This doesn’t make sense. Learn to write J-Mac. Are you talking about several “coywolves” or just one? Make up your mind. After you make up your mind, try and be explicit about what you intend to say, because “coywolves” doesn’t sound like anything Darwin was talking about.
If “we” means you, J-Mac, and someone else, I wouldn’t give it too much importance, since your inability to read wouldn’t allow you to understand what the word “sequencing” means in the first place.
More like J-Mac’s ignorant claims can be discarded.
Nonlin’s terminology remains me of something I read as a child:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Flint,
😀
I agree with most of the comments that the OP is a mess. Mis-use of terms from start to end.
This OP is appalling. It should be immediately obvious that Darwin, an experienced biologist, acknowledged that parents gave rise to children. That is of course a discrete step. There are no 10%-children, or 2.3935% children in between the parents and their children.
nonlin.org thinks that Darwin envisaged continuity so continuous that there would be no jump from parents to children. That is utterly absurd. nonlin.org thinks that lots of words are needed to refute the idea that there are discrete steps such as from parents to children.
Joe Felsenstein,
Right. The problem is that, while he provides a couple of definitions of “gradualism” in the first two graphs. He immediately departs from them, and, starting with 3, uses the term to mean whatever he feels like. So, e.g., his denial that “nature is gradual” involves the claim that “it is discrete.” But what could that mean? Nature is not a mathematical function, and even if it were, it could not be made continuous or discontinuous by, e.g., how points happen to appear in it to various observers. If, as he claims, biology involves atoms, that wouldn’t show that the biological world, somehow construed as a mathematical function, is discontinuous. I expect he means to be claiming with this blog that nature does not resemble ether–or borscht without potatoes. And as Joe says–whoever suggested that it did? Nonlin prefers photons to waves: good for him!
In a word, the whole thing is a stew of equivocations–more like a political speech than an argument that could possibly be untangled and analyzed. I suppose, though, that that’s the actual point.
Those are previous discussions from elsewhere (not yet incorporated into an updated OP): Biologos, PS, etc. I write the OP, someone comes up with a Con: and I reply with a Pro:
Makes sense?
Sorry, this draft release was required by Walto. Go ahead Walto, show your original thinking.
Good question… from an otherwise basic retard. Wow!
That’s the thing, there’s only DISCRETE variability around a mean, but there’s no gradualism. Carefully examine the pictures. There’s no gradualism between bear “species” despite a very [macro] gradual environment transition.
Wow! Statement of the year!
So let me get this straight: when you’re getting it, you’re only getting 50% of diabetes, hemophilia, ALS, etc? Wow again!
Not that we’re debating 19th century knowledge, but yes, “blending inheritance” was his game.
Is this it?!? Your original thinking? Why are you disappointing so badly?
Statement of the year #2! Wow!
Granted, this OP can use an update. But the main ideas are clearly numbered so you can more easily identify and dispute them. Which is what you’re not doing.
The kind of gradualism evolutionary biologists refer to is the SAME between and within species, and nobody said it implies a perfect continuum, doofus. How come you’re incapable of grasping that simple concept after being repeatedly pointed out to you?
Also, it’s trivial to debunk that nonsense about variability around a mean. First, if you’re so confident about there being a mean, you should be able to tell us what that mean is, second, if that was true, there would be no divergence once a population is split in two: they would both keep hovering around the same sequence, yet divergence is observed on isolated populations.
So right back at you, retard
A good way to visualize what Darwin meant by gradualism is to envision that you have an example of every generation starting from the 1 billion year old human ancestor to yourself. You can’t look at any individual along that line and say that it is a different species from its parents or from its children. Yet it is easy to classify our 1 billion year old ancestor as a different species from us.
Are all bears members of the same kind? Did they descend from a common ancestral bear species?
If you’re looking for advice on improving it. Mine would be to pick one meaning of “gradual” and “gradualism” at the beginning and stick with it throughout the essay. If you can’t substitute that definition for the word in some sentence, fix that sentence or delete it. My sense is that there won’t be much left, but maybe I’m wrong.
I keep thinking that Nonlin is some elementary or middle school kid.
Oh, so all that fuss in the OP about physics and such was just in order to establish that Darwin was assuming blending inheritance? Something that has been discussed in population genetics since at least R.A. Fisher’s 1930 book.
Could nonlin.org be making the elementary mistake of thinking that since genotypes differ discretely, therefore processes of change in populations are in discrete jumps from all one genotype to all another? That misconception was cleared up once it was understood that the changes were in gene frequencies.
My understanding is that most changes are invisible to selection, and likely to be invisible to human observers of phenotypes.
Hence the word drift.
The discrete chemical nature of atoms comes from Quantum Mechanics.
Proposition: Every living thing is genetically different from every other living thing.
I could be wrong. Is there evidence that cell replication happens without any errors?
Do we even have the means to know?
Most changes in the genome are invisible to selection, and invisible to an observer who does not have access to a sequencing machine.
Most changes in phenotypes may not be invisible to selection.
If invisible to selection (or visible but making a small enough change of fitness) then the changes in gene frequency at those places in the genome are not due to natural selection.
Genetic drift occurs in all loci in the genome, but its occurrence has nothing to do with what the observer can see. (If we leave out Heisenberg and Schrödinger).
The first discrete change is between cellular life and non-life.
The next discrete change is between Eukaryote and Prokaryote.
There are big discrete changes between unicellular and animal life. To be fair, the change between unicellular and plant is not quite as severe, but I think it’s pretty bad. There are also tough transitions Darwin himself called “the abominable mystery” for flowering plants.
There are discrete architectures such as say between humans and fish.
Follow the arrows and you’ll notice the fish vagina (UROGENITAL OPENING) is in the wrong place compared to what we would expect for human females. That change is hard to justify by gradualism, not withstanding the cloacal stage in human embryos that might remotely suggest it is possible via an unfortunate accident.
Here are some discrete architectures of the reptillian heart. Whatever is the assumed common ancestral heart, its formation doesn’t accord well with gradualism.
How did that right atrium evolve from one side to the other along with changes in its connection to the pulmonary artery? In the crocodile and snake the right atrium is on the right ventricle but in the lizard and turtle they are on the left ventricle.
Look at the aortas. In the lizard they are all on left ventricle, in the snake on the right ventricle, and then split for the turtles and crocodiles. How did those aortas migrate from on ventricle to the other without the transitionals being lethal?
Study the picture more and you’ll see, the Intelligent Designer seems almost to have a sense of humor in exploring the various implementations.
Statistical Phylogeny based on DNA/Protein sequences doesn’t resolve the morphological difficulties.
From:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/62/117362-004-C401D1FD.gif
Nonlin,
There are even more discrete changes at the molecular level, but they are technically challenging to describe. But if you want me to post some of them I will.
Challenging to describe? Every single mutation is discrete.
Here we have it. Salvador the illiterate, “helping” mentally-immature Nonlin continue with an “argument” whose foundations are incoherent crap.
Comparative analysis of reptile heart anatomy reveals the Intelligent Designer has a sense of humor
introduction
Despite the many astounding successes within the Intelligent Design Research Program, virtually nothing is known about how, when or why the Intelligent Designer (ID) did his stuff or who the ID is (just kidding: it is God, ssht). In this study I perform an exhaustive comparative analysis of heart anatomy within reptiles in order to study personality traits of the ID.
Methods
I looked at an online picture of 4 reptile hearts (supplementary figure 1)
Results
Differences in heart anatomy are discrete, and cannot possibly have evolved from a more primitive shared condition. Trust me, I can tell just by looking.
Discussion and conclusion
Because the ID has implemented many different heart designs for no apparent reason whatsoever, we conclude that the ID has a sense of humor. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a sense of humor has been reported for the ID.
Why? If your purported “designer” can predict the folding of proteins then why would it need to “explore” anything at all physically?
Corneel,
I think you have identified a terrific opportunity for ID to dramatically increase its profile in the peer-reviewed scientific literature: we could pair Sal, J-Mac, and nonlin up with published scientists and have them co-author papers to be submitted to the Cambridge-based Annals of Improbable Research.
Referee’s Review and Decision
Heh.
Look at this normal heart and this CCTGA heart. And no, the ventricles are NOT mislabeled: in the CCTGA heart the left and right ventricles are SWAPPED.
As Sal would say “How did those atria migrate from on[e] ventricle to the other without the transitionals being lethal?”
How indeed?
Edit: aorta to atria for accuracy, and lulz
DNA_Jock,
I’m gonna say “for shits and giggles.”
Nothing to do with the way those hearts developed. Instead, The Magical Being In The Sky swapped their positions magically. Further proof of “His” Sense Of Humor.
That describes a different problem than the one in reptilian heart architectures.
This is more in line with the problem I posed:
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=transposition-of-the-great-arteries-tga-90-P01823
So, even the surgeons understand the problem.
You cited a problem other than the one I posed and then pretended it solved the problem I actually posed when it didn’t.
We call that a misrepresentation.
Like what?
Where is the “continuum” in blood types?
Where is the “continuum” in disease incidence (half-cancer anyone)?
Where is the “continuum” in dimorphism ?
Where EXACTLY is that “continuum” anywhere in biology?
Of course there is a mean of all measures and is easily identified. Anyone [not retard] doubts this?!?
And of course there is no divergence anywhere. Instead, Regression to the mean is the rule in biology (more about this in a future OP – Corneel knows already). And do not CONFUSE adaptations under environmental pressure with “divergence” that would happen with the same population in a stable environment. Isolated populations face – of course – different environments therefore adapt. THIS IS NOT DIVERGENCE OF CHARACTER!
And focus on “gradualism” rather than “divergence”.
There’s nothing “easy” about “species”:
http://nonlin.org/speciation-problems/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/phyla-and-other-flawed-taxonomic-categories-vex-biologists-20190624/
Ever wonder why?
If you don’t see ANY horizontal gradualism (in space), what makes you think there was EVER a vertical gradualism (in time)? Especially since you cannot see ANY ONGOING vertical gradualism (like in eColi LTEE)?!? Of course your best hypothesis is DESIGN.
Obviously Darwin was DEAD WRONG about this one.
And let’s not forget that pesky little priest with his experimental evidence sending Darwin’s newborn unicorn straight to the glue factory.
Then talk with your dead buddy Darwin. What exactly did he mean by “gradualism”?!? Of course “continuous” since there was NO KNOWLEDGE at that time that nature is in fact ABSOLUTELY discrete. But you DO KNOW that now.
And even if Darwin had read Mendel, he would not have understood that Mendel’s experiments refuted his “gradualism”.
You quote me, yet don’t understand?!? No, this is NOT ABOUT the “blending inheritance” brain fart?
What “changes in genotype”? Changes from WHAT to WHAT?
We had this discussion before – there are no “changes” when each individual has his/her own genotype that no one else has or ever had.
Too bad there’s no such thing as [natural] selection.
There’s most definitely no such thing as “fitness” either. You know the drill: reply with your “fitness” function if you disagree.
Believe it or not, it’s actually quite funny when someone (typically Joe Felsenstein) keeps ignoring the clear evidence in favor of the mantra.
Can we focus on “gradualism”? If Joe Felsenstein ignores, Corneel drifts…
…while DNA_Jock appeals to “authority” 🙂
…needless to say, Walto “jokes”
…while Dazz/Entropy get nasty.
Does this look like marriage to anyone? Scary!
Oh Sal, it is hardly my fault if you fail to understand what gradualism does, and does not, entail.
I am quietly amused every time that you blame me for your ignorance.
I did cite a problem other than the one you posed. I made no effort to solve the problem, however; I merely noted how you, Sal, would view the problem. It was a way of demonstrating that your erector-set view of cardiovascular development is wrong.
Gentlemen, Turn your irony meters off…
Sal’s erudite rebuttal cited a problem (TGA) other than the one I posed (CCTGA), and pretended that this rebutted the problem I actually posed when it didn’t (TGA requires surgery within the first two weeks of life for survival, whereas CCTGA is generally rather benign and does not require any surgical intervention)
We call that a Cordova.
nonlin
Please calm down – you are incoherent.
I was going to illustrate examples of continua in blood types, cancer, and dimorphism, but I am going to hold off until I can be reasonably confident I wouldn’t just be making matters worse.
Thank you for pointing that out for the record.
I’ve got a gastroenterologist who loves to inform me regularly that my polyps are “pre-cancerous” if that counts. If cancer is something one either has or doesn’t have and I um…don’t, I wonder if nonlin would be willing to exchange colons with me.
Stop eating red meat (beef especially).
There’s no risk, no cost, not much inconvenience. Most heart surgeons would tell you this anyway.
Give it a month, and report.
Thanks. But I haven’t had any red meat for nearly 40 years.
I’m reminded that Mark Twain said everyone should smoke, so they will have something to give up if they get sick.