- 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
petrushka,
Hah. Well, I do still eat fish and fowl!
And Twinkies.
nonlin.org seems not to understand that you can have continuous frequencies of discrete things. Or that continuous-ish change within two lineages can cause them to end up differing discretely with no intermediates.
As for the challenge that I prove that there is natural selection by providing “the fitness function”, I am quite happy to leave it to readers to judge whether the existence of fitness has been crushingly refuted by nonlin.org’s arguments. nonlin.org can crow about it all they want.
“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. “–Nonlin
That assertion just makes me laugh. Nonlin has the cajones to actually assert that Darwin was unaware of the discrete units of biology, namely organisms and generations. We are to believe that Darwin built his entire theory on the idea that organisms and generations don’t exist.
T_aquaticus,
I think the main problem is that nothing specific is meant by “gradualism” in the OP. Or, rather, a half-dozen different things.
The problem is that Nonlin doesn’t understand that finding some definition for “gradual,” specifically one where it means “continuous,” doesn’t count as anything regarding evolutionary theory.
It isn’t enough to choose one definition. Nonlin needs to understand what gradualism means in evolutionary theory, rather than make up some definitions and then attacking such straw-men.
ETA: But good luck with that. Several of us explained to Nonlin that the OP starts with a mess of misunderstandings. Nonlin didn’t even read that. Understanding is not one of Nonlin’s abilities.
ETA: If I remember correctly, all of Nonlin’s allegations start with ignorant claims intertwined with weird definitions. But it truly is impossible for Nonlin to understand explanations, let alone those that contradict his cherry-picked, or made-up, dictionary definitions.
I’m convinced many problems are related to gut flora. Perhaps more-so than to our own genes, or to traditional kinds of infectious disease. I am not surprised that “food allergies” run in families, but don’t necessarily follow the rules of inheritance.
Food for research.
petrushka,
That’s a complicated thing. Our guts produce things, we eat things, the microbes come and go with food and interact with the food and the things our guts produce, etc. I doubt its simple enough that eating the “proper” microbes would suffice (if there’s such a thing at all). If there’s such a thing as “proper” microbes, you’d need constant reinforcement, besides changes in diet. So, again, if there’s such a thing, it will take quite a while to figure it out, and then to figure out what “microbiota” treatments would be like.
There is a treatment for C.diff. I will leave it to your imagination.
No dispute with anything you said.
Not sure what Nonlin’s really after with this succession of confused OPs. Peer review? All explanations are met with stonewalling and bluster. And the same stuff pops up over and over. Corneel and I spent a while on this strange desire to add parenthesised “regression to the mean” to the notion that populations may or may not tend to vary around a “static mean”. It’s not the same thing but, because the latter doesn’t sound sciency enough, Nonlin feels compelled to sound clever by throwing in a technical term, unaware that it’s not the same thing. You can have regression to the mean where the mean is not static. How do you like them apples, Nonlin?
As to gradualism, if one defines it tightly enough, every point mutation falsifies it. You don’t get 0.123 of a substitution. Take that, Darwin! Or Mendel. Or someone.
And he has the balls to claim that no divergence is observed when populations are isolated. I mean, he’s so dumb that he probably can’t see the differences between different human ethnic groups. Heh
Of course we see “horizontal gradualism”; There is plenty of variation within most species. You try to explain that away by calling it “flexibility”, but that’s just word games.
Regrettably, you appear not to have answered my questions. I asked those questions in an attempt to understand your argument (assuming you have one).
Earlier on, you said to dazz:
… which to me suggests that you believe every species of bear to be a specially created kind. If bears cannot have gradually diverged from a common ancestor, that means they do not constitute a single kind, right?
I know. I talk about it in my courses.
So you have a population of Cats and swap them one at a time with Dogs ending up with a Dog population. This must be how “evolution” happens. Now that makes TOTAL sense. And ‘you’ are the mythical “natural selection”. And let’s not forget the magic incantation: “evolution is true”.
This doesn’t look like your fitness function. Wonder why.
Why don’t we just vote on it instead? But only card-carrying “evolutionary scientists”.
Seriously?!?
Gradualism is from A to B, not around A or around B. Look at the bear map again. Horizontal Gradualism means in all overlapping zones you would have hybrid bears with a smooth transition. Also as you go up in altitude and latitude, you would have transition zones of intermediate HYBRIDS rather than MIX of distinct flora/fauna.
When your story doesn’t hold, you would rather focus on the unverifiable past than on the VERY INCONVENIENT observable here and now? How about agreeing first on what we see – namely NO Horizontal Gradualism WHATSOEVER – before making up stories?
Gradualism is about change in time, so “horizontal gradualism” makes no sense. I was indulging you by interpreting “horizontal gradualism” as phenotypic variation.
That might be expected if separated populations would not develop reproductive isolation and branch into distinct species. But they do.
Now, let’s examine your proposal that different species somehow represent adaptations to specific habitats. Could you enlighten me how in your scenario multiple bear species are maintained in one and the same habitat?
I was just trying to figure out what would logically follow from your claims, i.e. if discrete bear species cannot have gradually diverged from a common ancestor, it follows that they are separate kinds, right?
You are the one that is avoiding answering inconvenient questions, not me.
We see no actions or evidence of any sort of “intelligent designer”. But I doubt you’ll want to focus on that.
Let’s see whether I am following your argument. Here is nice picture of an American black bear side by side with a brown bear (grizzly? I make a terrible field biologist).
According to you, there is NO WAY these species can have gradually diverged from a common ancestor, because .. um .. individual organisms are discrete?
picture from wikipedia
We’ve been very laissez-faire, but there is a limit folks.
Sorry mate, I just can’t help myself 😂
I’ll just ignore him from now on
The fast and furious evolution of the faded bear… 😉
Look at the foxes. Even faster and more furious evolution:
2 species of fox but the same kind:
2. Next generation:
3. Fox smoothie:
Evolution happening right in front of our eyes with some artificial selection…
Praise the Darw!!!
How could have helped yourself if you had had no control over it due to the lack of free will?
Isn’t it obvious? If individual organisms are discrete it logically follows that these two species could not have diverged from a common ancestral population. Absolutely no way.
😀
Or maybe just 1 species of fox. Those look like domesticated red foxes to me.
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what your point is. It looks like you are agreeing with me that there is no impediment to achieving rapid morphological diversification.
I genuinely struggle to see what the argument is. Nature is not gradual, so species cannot change. Uh, how does that work, exactly?
Corneel,
J-Mac thinks that those two bears are the same “kind.” Not species, not evolved, but “kind.” As example, he puts domesticated foxes of different colors to “prove” that the bears only differ in color, and that color is meaningless.
How would I know. It “follows” in Nonlin’s “logic.” Remember that Nonlin finds or makes up some definition, then “devastates” the straw-men, usually making a bunch of ridiculous and convoluted claims in the process, and therefore “take that darwinistas!”
Maybe…
What morphological diversification have you been able to determine in the black bear fading into brown one or even polar bear? Same with foxes?
Ah, that would make sense alright. Not sure whether he is in agreement with Nonlin then, since Nonlin appears to perceive the bear species as distinct units. Neither of them seems very eager to explain.
ETA: correction
I do not doubt that bears and foxes have some phenotypic variation in morphological traits within species (you proved the point for fur colour in red foxes). It is also pretty clear that there are currently distinct species of bears and foxes.
Just to be clear: do you think that bears are a single kind? If you do, do you accept that the current diversity of bears arose by gradual divergence from a common bear ancestor?
Don’t forget the fast and furious evolution of the polar bears especially the adaptations to the extreme high fat, high cholesterol diet!
Just because polar bears surprisingly have high serum cholesterol levels could be explained by “natural selection not being able to see it” but nobody is perfect even the omnipotent natural selection not to mention the evolutionary theory science fiction hype about the fast and furious evolutionary processes of black bears into polar bears…😅🤣
J-Mac,
Stop projecting. You think it’s not a natural and thus imperfect process, instead you believe that imperfections, such as your unlimited idiocy, are the works of a perfect all-powerful magical being in the sky. You just keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Corneel,
Surprised? Salvador is also arguing as if in agreement with Nonlin’s shit. He’s also talking about “discrete” shit, and promising to give Nonlin lists of “discrete” processes at the molecular level, which Salvador thinks are very hard to explain (as if mutations were “continuous”, for example). I’m puzzled that Salvador is encouraging something as stupid as “evolution is false because nature is discrete.” Then again, well, it’s Salvador. Why should anybody be surprised.
So, what’s J-Mac’s position? I doubt J-Mac knows (her/him)self. All I know is that J-Mac babbles idiocy and never seems to understand corrections. Well, none of them understands corrections. They keep coming back with the very same stupid misconceptions.
When you don’t know how to write an answer at least have the decency and don’t repeat the same lines… It’s obvious and boring to death…
It you don’t want to accept anything beyond what you have already stated a thousand times, join a feel good Darwinian church…and stop wasting others time…
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945
Nonlin.org,
Oh dear.
Then you agree we don’t see any Horizontal Gradualism?
You also agree we don’t see any Vertical Gradualism (say in LTEE)? Which you conveniently blame on the time scale (despite failed LTEE)?
But somehow you think the gradualism fairy tale still holds? Based on what experimental evidence?!?
And that’s your problem with Horizontal Gradualism: they are not and never were separated populations.
Square this circle:
if (on most land masses) the environment is gradual, how come “species” are not gradual?
System Design. The concept of “species” is obviously inadequate.
They could also diverge by design. Still a death blow to “evolution”.
Of course we do. Go to that topic if you have anything to say:
This thread is for “gradualism”.
Really, for one word? Fine, but you better enforce this consistently.
Again:
Nonlin.org on June 28, 2019 at 5:50 am said:
T_aquaticus: “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. “–Nonlin
That assertion just makes me laugh. Nonlin has the cajones to actually assert that Darwin was unaware of the discrete units of biology, namely organisms and generations.
Did I mention “organisms and generations” in the segment cited or elsewhere? Why would you make up stuff?
Entropy: Nonlin needs to understand what gradualism means in evolutionary theory,
Why don’t you explain?
Allan Miller: You can have regression to the mean where the mean is not static.
Did I say ‘static’?!? Are you done killing the straw man?
Allan Miller: As to gradualism, if one defines it tightly enough, every point mutation falsifies it. You don’t get 0.123 of a substitution. Take that, Darwin! Or Mendel.
Why don’t you define it (gradualism) to makes sense? And why would you invoke Darwin AND Mendel when Mendel’s experimental findings totally invalidate Darwin’s “gradualism”? Who are you trying to fool?
dazz: no divergence is observed when populations are isolated
Hey, when you’re ****, you don’t understand that “divergence of character” is supposed to operate in non-isolated populations.
dazz: he probably can’t see the differences between different human ethnic groups
Then different species? And which one is the inferior race in the eugenic viewpoint?
Your argument is very powerful. I am thinking and will get back to you.
Nonlin.org,
Yes you did. End of point 1 in your very own OP. Right where you added the parenthetic “regression to the mean” to which I referred.
Hard to offer an argument against that pathetically familiar restatement of what ‘evolution’ means. Substitution of cats by dogs indeed. This, after all these years arguing the topic, is the best you can muster, a classic strawman. You apparently lack the capacity to be embarrassed, hence: “oh dear”.
Nonlin.org,
How do you define it? If you insist that there must be no discontinuity of any kind between generations, then well done, you (or rather geneticists) have falsified that definition. Where does that leave us? What’s the ‘therefore’?
The fucking irony. Follow your own advice J-Mac. If you repeat and repeat your projected: “all-powerful natural selection”, why should I give you a different answer? I have explained a billion times to you that nobody thinks of natural selection as all-powerful, and that you should stop projecting from your religion, yet, here you are repeating. What’s the method to get you to understand and stop repeating that projection? Let’s make a deal, you stop projecting and I’ll stop talking about your idiocy and your insistence to shoot yourself in the foot.
Me? It’s not me who keeps repeating the same mistakes. It’s you who repeats and repeats the same shit. If you stop repeating, I’ll stop giving you the same answer. You repeat, what do you expect? Don’t you see that in this one you shot yourself in the foot, again, after I said that you shoot yourself in the foot? Are you really unaware of this?
I explained you illiterate buffoon. But why would you care? You won’t understand that explanation anyway.
Entropy,
The beauty of free will is that nobody can force, or predetermine anyone to believe something… I hope you, and Larry, have enough sense of logic to understand that…
I’m the last one to do that…
Be well! 🤗
How do you district a species?
If I breed the red fox with the silver fox and a mix of the two emerges in one generation-the combination of color and fur features of both- is that a new, distinct species?
(See the fox smoothie earlier)
I don’t know much about this stuff, but I’ve never heard it suggested that a good way to distinguish mammalian species is to note their color.
Species is a population concept, not necessarily. Hybrids are hybrids.
Species populations are species, not because they are unable to produce fertile hybrids, but because they don’t, in the wild.
What keeps them from “voluntarily” hybridizing can be anything from geographical isolation to mating behavior.
Of course, it is certainly possible for species to drift to the point where they can’t produce offspring withe their nearest cousins.
Really?! So you disagree with the fast and furious evolutionary processes of the fading brown bear to the polar bear?!
Are you aware that the whole kerfuffle between ID and evolution supporters was about the mutations (other than ApoB cholesterol mutations) in the bear hair follicle cells responsible for the production of pigment?
If the fur coat color doesn’t matter, and the bears have high cholesterol levels, what was the FAST and furious bear evolution about?
Do you realize that if this is ALL true, as it looks that way, both Darwinists and DI, especially Behe, invested too much in this nonsense?
The original Cell paper that Behe based a large portion his Darwin Devolves book is nonsense…
Here is the tricky part: It is in the best interests of both sides to pretend that some kind of bear evolution happened…
At least you and I agree that the fur coat color is nonsense… 😊
Ok, right. And of course, “you can have regression to the mean where the mean is not static” as you say. However, the mean can be both static (short term) and not static (long term). In fact it HAS TO BE static short term for “regression to the mean” to make sense. And IT IS because “regression to the mean” is an undisputed fact.
Dude, it was poking fun at Falsenstein’s argument. Follow the thread.
Then you don’t have a definition that makes sense? Want to think some more?
And, as you see in the OP, this is not just about the micro level (atoms and molecules). Nature is discrete (non-gradual) at all levels, micro and macro!
This really invalidates the gradualism assumption – one cornerstone of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution because without it, he could not justify the idea that one organism changes into another. If you agree with this, we’re done here. If not, why not?