- 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
You call this an explanation, you illiterate buffoon (if ‘retard’ is “crossing the line”):
“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.” ?!?
What on earth has this nonsense to do with reality?
Where exactly can we see “populations diverge” in nature?
And what on earth does “somewhat small” mean? Put some numbers and real life examples on this nonsense if you pretend to be scientific, you illiterate buffoon (if ‘retard’ is “crossing the line”).
Yes–Really!!
Ah, so THAT’s what it means! Do you really think that definition works throughout your OP? Does it work here:
How about here:
I leave to you the task of substituting to find out.
I do like “somewhat small in magnitude” though. Very nice weasel.
FWIW, the issue of discrete versus gradual aka analog versus digital is still open; what physics says about that question was the subject of a 2011 FQXi essay contest.
https://fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2011.1
The winner says digital (or at least claims that is what a contemporary Newton would say). But some runners-up avoid that conclusion, eg instead claiming it is still too soon to justify a conclusion. (I have only looked at a few of them).
I don’t know if this contest is best considered a debate or a discussion. On the one hand, the fact that they picked a winner is evidence that it was a debate. On the other hand, the fact that they had so many runner up prizes is evidence that they meant it to be a discussion.
In any event, the word ‘evolution’ does not occur in the winning essay. So we can rest easy on that potential concern.
You seem cagey about applying any rigour. ‘Short term’ – how long’s that? But anyway, you are wrong. A mean can be constantly changing – never ‘static’ – and yet you are still more likely get measurements towards the centre – ie regression. It just has to change slowly – ie gradually. Mutations themselves change the ‘mean’.
‘cept you missed his argument by a mile, hence it was an inept strawman. You people show your lack of grasp of evolution in your attempts to lampoon it. Indeed, you show a bizarre psychology in your need to lampoon it, rather than address it on its own terms. I know you think you’re a genius, but you probably haven’t discovered a gaping hole in evolutionary theory that everyone else has missed. Maybe you need to stop arguing like a child.
Sure I do. But we were talking of your (apparent, cagily stated) definition, in which you think that even point mutations are not gradual. So fine, if that’s your definition it is easily falsified. But … So fucking what? If the smallest possible change is discrete, does that mean it doesn’t happen?
Are we still talking about bears? Are you sure? I believe that brown bears migrated into North America from Eurasia.
Not obvious to me. How does System Design explain the requirement for multiple bear species to act as top predator?
So you do believe that bears are a single kind. Could they have gradually diverged by Design?
The silver fox is just a melanistic fur mutant of the red fox. They are the same species: Vulpes vulpes.
walto was correct: just looking at fur colour is a poor way to distinguish species. You typically look at reproductive isolation, ecology and genetic divergence.
Corneel,
When one has to make design indistinguishable from evolution in order to pass muster as an explanation for the same observations …
Did you try remedial reading comprehension? That is Entropy’s retard definition – a joke on par with “a female unicorn is a unicorn with tits”.
Of course. “Evolution” will not occur anywhere near real or potentially-real science.
“Change slowly”?!? Talk about “applying any rigour”. The mean IS static short term within a random error factor (mutations, measurement error, etc). For most populations, mutations amount to non-directional random errors from one generation to the next. Agree?
Of course I did. Not one but many if not all claims of “evolution”. Take this OP: if you don’t see any horizontal gradualism, how do you justify vertical gradualism? We’re not even seeing vertical gradualism in eColi (LTEE) even though that WAS the claim and expectation.
You tell me what the appropriate approach is to astrology, card reading, alchemy, “evolution”, witchcraft, etc. Address it on its own terms?!? That would be ridiculous. But show something of substance, logic and verifiable and it will be taken seriously. I mean the smallest itsy bitsy thing. Can you?
Your problem is that not just the smallest changes are discrete, but that we see no gradualism ON THE MACRO SCALE either. Now that’s a huge problem for “evolution gradualism”.
Doesn’t matter. If “gradualism” were true, you should see a gradual transition after a few generations from bear to bear either by hybridization or “divergence of character”.
Gradual Environment versus Discrete Organisms is the mega problem of “gradualism”
What “requirement”? You only observe what ‘it is’. Never what ‘is required’. Why would you even bring up something you know nothing about?
What’s “single kind”? Could have, should have, would have… Why do you feel the need to speculate all the time? How about observing and discussing the observable facts – like no gradualism whatsoever in nature?
I haven’t. Is your guy, Irwin Corey, available?
No, you wouldn’t. Once there is is reproductive isolation, gene flow is reduced so there will be little to no intermingling. As for divergence: I don’t understand how you envisage it making species more similar.
That’s funny. I might ask you the exact same thing. You brought up “System Design” as an explanation for the presence of distinct (“discrete”) species of bear with overlapping ranges. If “System Design” does not entail that observation, then it cannot be an explanation of it. So am I correct in surmising that you were just flaunting an empty phrase?
Encore. Are all bears related to each other, but not to any other animal? If you answer “yes”, that would make bears a single kind.
Because I need to have an explanation for the current biogeographic patterns of species distribution. I need to KNOW. So why are you not interested?
This is one of the telltale signs that Intelligent Design is not and never has been science; the glaring disinterest of its proponents in seeking actual explanations; The sheer absence of curiosity. All we ever get are hollow phrases like “intelligence” and “design” without the slightest interest in the details of implementation.
Yes, and as “design” is a “mechanism” it’s a self-referential loop they just keep going round and round.
Worse than that, it is active avoidance on any explanation beyond someone somehow did something , evolution is wrong.
Professor Irwin Corey ,if you please.
What “reproductive isolation” when HGT is so widespread? Also, “divergence” (if true; hint: it’s not) should cause x-bear “subspecies” to appear closely related to y-bear “subspecies” precisely because they share the same environment. Also mimicry and “convergent evolution”, remember? And plain old environmentally determined morphology. Darwinistas always have some “explanation” ready. Anyway, no horizontal gradualism out there.
If you don’t like the answer, then don’t ask silly questions.
What do you mean ‘related’? ‘Related’ how? Are all vehicles ‘related’ despite being independent products of intelligent design?
If you REALLY needed to KNOW, you would RESEARCH and not be satisfied with illogical “explanations”. You would also observe that “gradualism” is yet another stupid assumption/explanation of reality. Now, which one of us is more interested in finding out what’s really going on?
This is totally ridiculous. For thousands of years the proponents of Intelligent Design have worked so hard to understand God’s miracles in nature and here comes the follower of a false prophet and his TRULY STUPID myths, including “gradualism”, accusing others of “absence of curiosity”.
Forget “someone somehow did something”.
“Evolution” is wrong ON ITS OWN, not because someone else succeeds. For instance “gradualism” fails miserably as shown right here.
Or maybe somebody affirmed a consequent.
Whatever, it’s wrong, OK?
I know. Like through paintings, poetry and cantatas, right? And others have sought it through spooky mantras and beautiful mandalas. But where’s the credit?
I mean, you take Wie Selig Sind Doch Die (with its undulating oboe da caccio obbligato). That freaking thing is gorgeous. I dare anybody to deny it.
And what do the dunderheads with their false prophets give us?
Damn straight! And don’t forget the Ford Pinto and the (“unsafe at any speed”) Chevy Corvair! They gave us that crapola too. The Pintos would just burst into flames!!!
Fucking atheist retards.
And Schutz’s Absalom, Absalom?! Soooo moving.
Come on, guys! Wake the hell up!!
You cannot read, can you? I don’t want to force you to believe anything. You can believe as you please. I’m just telling you that it is fucking obvious, for anyone who understands evolution, that it cannot be all-powerful. Yet, after explaining this to you a million times, you keep going back to mischaracterizing evolution as all-powerful. Since it’s you who believes in an all-powerful being, you’re merely projecting. Since you criticize the problems among life forms as “contradicting” the notion of an “all-powerful evolution,” you’re shooting yourself in the foot, since you believe that life is the product of an all-powerful being.
What I’d expect is that you’d be smart enough to recognize your mistakes and that you’d stop shooting yourself in the fucking foot. But reasoning is not something you’re prone to practicing. So, I know you’ll repeat, just don’t act “angry” if I tell you, again, how much of an imbecile you are to shoot yourself in the foot.
It’s not my problem that you cannot fix a mistake that doesn’t imply, in the slightest, that you have “changed your beliefs.”
That’s not crossing the line, it’s just ironic, because the very next thing you do is show your illiteracy:
Yes. Though I’m not surprised that you were unable to understand it. I predicted that you would not understand, remember? That’s why I called you an illiterate buffoon.
1. That you don’t understand something that simple doesn’t make it nonsense.
2. It has everything to do with reality. But, if you think it doesn’t, then you’re invalidating your whole OP, since you’re arguing that even if things can look “continuous,” they’re truly truly “discrete.” So, if you think that my explanation has nothing to do with reality you’re shooting yourself in the foot. J-Mac might be able to help you heal. (S)he has lots of experience shooting [him/her]self in the foot.
Everywhere. But you’re missing the point (because you’re an illiterate buffoon). I’m not even trying to convince you that there’s divergence. I’m explaining that, in evolutionary parlance, gradualism doesn’t mean what you pretend it to mean.
It means exactly that we should not expect a brand new species, or brand new family, or brand new domain of life, etc., after just one generation. Again, it doesn’t matter if those changes in the populations are described as “continuous” or as “discrete.”
Don’t be fucking stupid. You’re missing the point, which is: you misunderstand what gradualism means. That’s it. I do not care one bit about convincing you that there’s divergence. I am just explaining that you’re fighting a straw-man, thus ridiculing yourself. So, if you care about being “scientific” and “debunking” evolution, or showing how “wrong” and “ridiculous” evolution is, at least understand what you’re imagining to be attacking.
I know that you won’t get it, again. I have plenty of experience watching you missing the point time and again, like the illiterate buffoon that you are so proud to be.
So, I’ll leave you now to your illiteracy, your ignorance and your self-ridiculing.
Disagree, because of the phenomenon of genetic drift. Even neutral changes get substituted. There is an extensive literature on the topic. Educate yourself.
But we do see vertical change in the LTEE, much of it ‘gradual’, so I don’t know what the fuck you are on about.
You can’t. That’s what matters here. Your lampoons are pathetically wide of the mark. You want to be taken seriously, stop talking shite.
Come back with those goalposts!
If I have a huge pile of letters and I replace them one by one, I’d say I was doing so gradually. If, after a million such substitutions, I had a pile of letters that was nothing like the original, nonlin would have it that gradualism had been debunked, because the change is huge. That’s the level of idiocy on display here (yes, I know we have rules, but …).
You don’t know what “related” means? That’s a bit unexpected. No, cars are not related. Only entities that have genealogical relationships can be, like humans and bears. If two bears share an ancestor (e.g. they have the same granddaddy), they are related. Get it?
Now, let’s try again: Are all bears related to each other, but not to any other animal?
You get one shot at guessing what my job description is 😀
Polite warning: Arguments involving God, miracles and prophets may not convince me that Intelligent Design is science instead of religion.
Anyway, I haven’t received any answers to my silly question: Could modern bear species have gradually diverged by Design?
I truly had no idea. How was I supposed to know that ID was so venerable?
Given that all scientific explanations are provisional and therefore probably to some degree wrong and incomplete, the qualities of alternative explanations are relevant.
In this case ,one attempts to provide detailed explanations , the alternative actively avoids even the contemplation of detail to avoid side by side comparison.
But but but…do you really not see? Each letter and each stack is a discrete item: it’s not like they’re liquids or gasses, just blending into one another. And even if they DID do that, it wouldn’t be gradual because of the electrons.
Nothing is gradual. Not letters, not stacks of letters, not liquids, not gasses, not electrons, and certainly not evolution. So shut the hell up.
Aye-aye, Cap’n!
Planck destroyed evolution. Who knew?
I was thinking of saying something similar. Even as I do t’ai chi (if I did, that is), my movements would be jerky on the Planck scale. And if you filmed it, 24 snapshots a second; no movement at all.
Paging Zeno.
I have Zeno on line .999999999999999999
Would you care to hold for half a sec?
walto,
🤣
Yeah, it means hocus-pocus. I get it. Hence no numbers attached and nothing verifiable.
You mean another theoretical concept illustrated with colored marbles but no real life examples?
Last I checked them eColi are still eColi with a number of entirely expected variants, none of which is viable outside that specific lab. See? No gradualism. Just random noise.
No. YOU can’t. Then what is “evolution” based on? …if even “gradualism” fails so obviously?
More marbles, letters, artist’s imagination, and colored dots. Meanwhile, no verifiable REAL LIFE example from nature whatsoever. And no gradualism anywhere in nature as you go up/down in altitude or left/right/etc across the globe.
Really? So how will you VERIFY relatedness in bears? And when you say chimps and humans are “related”, did you personally verify the credentials of the whole lineage including the common great-great…-great grandfather/mother? Or do you just assume relatedness because it fits your dogma?
Also, your definition sucks:
re·lat·ed
[rəˈlādəd]
ADJECTIVE
belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.
“sleeping sickness and related diseases”
synonyms:
connected · interconnected · associated · linked · coupled · correlated · allied · [more]
Whatever. You’re not the first or last that doesn’t do their job properly.
Look, you got it completely wrong about “science instead of religion”. There is no “instead” http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/. And be honest – prophet Darwin is who you worship.
And you’re not going to. Stop asking silly questions.
Now, go back to “gradualism”. Why no “horizontal gradualism” in nature? And if no evidence of micro/macro observable gradualism, why not drop the “vertical gradualism” stupidity?
This is illogical. If you verify something to be wrong, it’s wrong. It happened with “spontaneous generation” and is happening anytime they test a drug for efficacy ON ITS OWN MERITS. And now it’s happening with “evolution” that fails absolutely ALL claims including “gradualism” as shown here.
What detailed explanation? There is a VERY VAGUE myth of “evolution” that fails (“gradualism” in this instance). Don’t call that “detailed explanation” when you’re not willing/able to support it with facts and numbers.
Yeah, let’s pretend gradualism is missing in action only at the micro level. And let’s brush aside the fact that no gradualism can be seen at the macro level either. No horizontal and no vertical gradualism anywhere in sight, but let’s ignore that.
Let’s further pretend that the micro has no bearing on the macro. And let’s wish away that inconvenient priest Mendel and his experiments that totally demolished “gradualism” and the “blended inheritance” nonsense. We can do that because of marble, letters, and artist’s conception.
No, I don’t see why I should answer your questions when you flatly refuse to engage with mine.
Ha! So you cannot do any better than showing that you’re an illiterate buffoon. Thanks for playing.
There are real life examples of genetic drift. Educate yourself.
Are you really saying that the only ‘gradualism’ you would accept is an enormous change? Can you not see how dumb that is?
No, YOU can’t. Gee, this is fun.
Are you familiar with the concept of the illustrative analogy? It’s also a testbed for concepts, since you evidently don’t have a clue about genetics.
If I replaced letters one by one, would you consider that ‘gradual’ or not?
Nonlin.org,
So – just to be clear – are you categorically saying that a point mutation is not ‘gradual’ in your book?
Follow-up question: if point mutation is not ‘gradual’, does that mean it does not happen?
Allan Miller,
Nonlin has no other intention than dismiss whatever you say. This is why his/her “answers” have nothing to do with your intended point. (ETA: Besides the fact that Nonlin cannot read.)