Improbable Destinies: Fate, Chance, and the Future of Evolution
I love books like this. Pure wonder about the living world. The beauty. The mystery. Shattering the myths of Darwinism while still clinging desperately to them.
We learn that Darwinism has retarded evolutionary thought for at least a century because the picture that Darwin gave us (which his disciples followed for over a hundred years) was false. Evolution can be tested. It can be observed within human lifetimes. It doesn’t require the infinitesimal insensible aggregations over millenia previously thought. Evolution can be really really fast. Which ought to be good news for young earth creationists.
We also learn that the oft-heard claim that degree of similarity implies degree of relatedness is false. That some species A looks very much like some species B doesn’t at all mean that they are more closely related than some other species which is visibly different.
Another nail in the coffin.
The Amazon blurb:
A major new book overturning our assumptions about how evolution works
Earth’s natural history is full of fascinating instances of convergence: phenomena like eyes and wings and tree-climbing lizards that have evolved independently, multiple times. But evolutionary biologists also point out many examples of contingency, cases where the tiniest change—a random mutation or an ancient butterfly sneeze—caused evolution to take a completely different course. What role does each force really play in the constantly changing natural world? Are the plants and animals that exist today, and we humans ourselves, inevitabilities or evolutionary flukes? And what does that say about life on other planets?
Jonathan Losos reveals what the latest breakthroughs in evolutionary biology can tell us about one of the greatest ongoing debates in science. He takes us around the globe to meet the researchers who are solving the deepest mysteries of life on Earth through their work in experimental evolutionary science. Losos himself is one of the leaders in this exciting new field, and he illustrates how experiments with guppies, fruit flies, bacteria, foxes, and field mice, along with his own work with anole lizards on Caribbean islands, are rewinding the tape of life to reveal just how rapid and predictable evolution can be.
Improbable Destinies will change the way we think and talk about evolution. Losos’s insights into natural selection and evolutionary change have far-reaching applications for protecting ecosystems, securing our food supply, and fighting off harmful viruses and bacteria. This compelling narrative offers a new understanding of ourselves and our role in the natural world and the cosmos.
“Shattering the myths of Darwinianism while still clinging to them…” I like that a lot. good line. copywrite it!
A butterfly sneeze eh. I remember a Simpsons episode etc
I think I read about the lizard Carribean thing.
Where lizards gained size and organs suddenly and so they invoked PLACISITITY (sp) as opposed to mere selection on mutation. they had too.
Its still yet another need for revisionism in old time evolutionism.
Real life never confirms evolution. Yet they cling and dream up new answers.
Indeed convergent evolution ideas alone undercut the claim of how small steps lead from this to that. If a sneeze can change a direction ITS SO UNLIKELY convergence would take place in different lineages from endless selection on mutations.
convergent evolution as a answer actually hurts evolutionism and will increasingly do so and be, I THINK, a major reason for evolutions demise.
Like Rutherfords ideas undercutting newton before einstein finished it off.
time is running out as more thoughtful people think and experiment on evolutionism.
Mung,
Of what? Evolutionary theory is thriving.
Well, whoever wrote that review on Amazon obviously doesn’t know what they are talking about. We don’t have ASSUMPTIONS about evolution, evolution (lucky accidents) is a theory in the SCIENCE sense of a theory. You see that means it is a fact, like gravity. That is how scientists use the word. There are no assumptions. Lucky Accidents is one of the most supported, most durable, most precise theories in all of science.
Lucky Accidents isn’t something we believe, its scientific fact.
Nail that strawman into the coffin!
Wow, Mung’s many creationist misconceptions about evolutionary theory are wrong! Surprising nobody but himself and his ilk.
Glen Davidson
I think you’re putting that nail into the wrong coffin, Mung.
The entire contents of the 2017 volume of the premier ID journal, BIO-Complexity:
Not Mung’s version.
Glen Davidson
Which one?
From mung’s OP:
I guess from “we learn” that you have read Professor Losos‘ book. It’s clear that evolutionary theory has evolved since Darwin first published Origin of Species but “darwinism has retarded evolutionary thought” sounds like a hyperactive strawman.
Sure. this is not news.
You write as if there has been a sea change. Evolution rates depend on generation times so elephant evolution is slower than E. coli evolution (though elephants have sex, so it’s not all bad).
How fast is “really really fast”?
Convergent evolution is not news either.
I’m not sure if you are recommending this book. Jonathan Losos seems to have excellent credentials as a biologist and glancing through his previous output and reviews, there doesn’t seem anything controversial there.
My suspicion is that Mung hasn’t read the book and that Losos didn’t say any of the things Mung thinks the book might tell him.
My suspicions exactly. Did you read the book, Mung? Yes or no.
LoL. Isn’t there a rule about accusing people of dishonesty?
I would quote directly from the book, but then people would accuse me of quote-mining.
And boy oh boy. If there’s one constant here at TSZ it’s that the ID critics haven’t read the book, can’t be bothered to read the book, and wouldn’t be caught dead reading the book. Because, you know, they already know what’s in it.
And then they accuse me of not reading the book. Even though in the OP I say I love books like this. The irony.
If I start an OP on a book you can be fairly certain that I have the book and have read the book, or am in the process of reading the book. I invite anyone to find an OP I’ve started on a book where this is not the case.
Need a picture?
I can rely on you. You’ve always got a red-herring to hand. Anything to deflect attention. Is that part of being a rational atheist?
Don’t like the subject so try to change it. Try to derail the thread. I can almost predict what’s coming next.
I have not read the book. And I don’t currently have any plans to read the book.
I didn’t find anything in either the OP or the Amazon page, that persuaded me that it would be worth taking the time to read this book.
I guess I must have developed an immunity to click-bait.
Neil Rickert,
You might want to change your mind about reading the book. Just because Mung recommends something, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Losos is a respected evolutionary biologist whose research program has produced some fascinating results, which I expect are discussed in the book. And I doubt anything Mung thinks he has found (or perhaps will find, assuming he hasn’t actually read it) is actually there.
Losos attributes almost everything to natural selection. I’d call him a pan-selectionist. I haven’t seen him make the case yet though that in each and every case the changes were a result of natural selection. I predict he won’t make that case. His appeals to natural selection are no different than waving a magic wand.
But you’re right that people should read it for themselves regardless of what I say about it. And it is a good book. Neil probably thinks it’s an ID book. LoL.
It’s got some cool stuff to say about birds too. Even John might learn something.
Sounds like my sort of biologist.
Still waiting for what you mean when you say “magic”. Anyway, I’m curious to know how Losos regards genetic drift. Does it get a mention?
Well, the reviews on his earlier work (he’s editor, though, not author) are very positive. I’m tempted.
Unless he wrote something that contradicts evolutionary narrative … ;-0
Certainly unlucky accidents are a fact depending on your point of view.
Actually, I think it’s a biology book. And I doubt that it gives any support to ID.
J-Mac,
If wishes were fishes…
I would need more than your say-so.
I did get that impression. But that doesn’t guarantee that I would be fascinated.
No problem. I just didn’t want you to reject the book because of Mung’s recommendation.
John:
davemullenix:
Mung:
That lengthy, defensive response is amusingly revealing. Nowhere in it does Mung actually answer the question:
I forgot that any narrative fits evolution even Harshman’s miracles lol now referred to by some as miraclevolution…
I don’t know, what difference does it really make if Mung read the book or not? He doesn’t get biology or evolution, and reads to find fault with “Darwinism.”
The real question is if Mung has read and comprehended Losos’ book. The answer is that almost certainly he has not. “Comprehended” being the key word.
Glen Davidson
Glen:
Yes, which brings to mind what happened with Andreas Wagner’s book, Arrival of the Fittest. Mung was blathering about how it was an ID-friendly book, which is nonsense.
I challenged him:
And:
To no one’s surprise, Mung squirmed, stalled, and then skedaddled.
Mung,
It’s not a red herring. You’re clumsily hammering the nail into the wrong coffin. The funeral is for ID, not for evolutionary theory.
These biases could operate in a number of ways. The most obvious is the genetic similarity of close relatives, presenting the same target to natural selection…
LoL.
Please reveal what was revealed to you, o revelator. And don’t let fmm see you revealing something to someone else after having had it revealed to you. lol
.
Did you ever start an OP on it? It really bothers you that when you play a tune I don’t dance to it. So do keep trying. 🙂
But I’m not the one wielding the hammer and nails. You appear to be having visions. Did you forget to take off your Sentinel Islander Goggles?
You’re nattering again. I accept the reality of evolution including universal common descent. I could care less about funerals for evolutionary theory.
And I take it you’re another one of those under-educated folk who think evolutionary theory just is Darwinism. Will someone please set keiths straight?
At least once.
An obvious reference to genetic drift.
Why on earth not?
It’s called logic. Don’t sweat it, it’s an evolutionist thing
dazz,
Congrats!!! Espania 3 vs Italia 0
:)))
Did you go to the game?
dazz, to Mung:
Oh, snap.
No and thanks, but it’s just football, great win though. Let’s not derail the thread
Creationists would say its not a theory. Only a hypothesis only supported by secondary claims of evidence.
Its not a theory because its subject of biology is not supported by biology evidences.
So the assumptions of these secondary subjects do influence the hypothesis. Change these assumptions and one threatens to change the hypothesis.
Ideas, like evolution, do not evolve. This is human thinking. If things chanmge its because conclusions changed. That means previous conclusions were rejected. WRONG!
Evolutionism has not evolved but instead has been forced to correct itself to save itself. The most recent famous one being punctuated equilibrium.
This was a desperate attempt to sabe the fossil record for evolutionism. Since it was not showing evolution by steps in changes in body plans. Just a new body plan was discovered and previous body plans, of creatures thought to be in succession, extinct.
So AHA, it happens in fits and starts, suddenly in isolated areas etc. They say!
Evolutionism is not working even for these very evo researchers. they find stuff.
Its like those guys who found problems in Newtons ideas and made a path for Einstein.
Newtons ‘theory” was settled and confirmed beyond any more need to confirm.
yet totally wrong and replaced. Probably einstein and the rest are headed that way too.
Complicated subjects are complicated and quick hypothesis should be held suspect.
Anyways evolutionism is not based on bio sci evidence.
If that’s the only reference to genetic drift, using “occasionally” and “small populations”, I’m even more tempted.
Alan Fox,
Heh. I can see I’m not getting through! 😉
If Alan is still this confused about drift, maybe an OP is in order.
This is factually incorrect, Robert. Newton’s theory of gravity is a mathematical model that predicts the motion of bodies such as planets and projectiles to a sufficient accuracy that it is still used today, for instance in calculating trajectories for space shots. It is not totally wrong just more wrong than Einstein’s model.
Isaac Asimov on the Relativity of Wrong
Please be my guest. How confused is “this confused”?
Allan Miller,
More long walks!
Alan,
Very confused.
Your attitude toward drift is oddly skeptical. To those who understand the concept, the reaction is more like “Oh, sure. That makes perfect sense. How could there not be such a thing as drift?”
keiths,
My understanding of genetic drift is a process that will tend to randomly reduce diversity due to fixation of neutral alleles in the absence of selective pressure. This process is more obvious in small populations and may be an important factor in the founder effect. Please correct this confusion. And where did you learn about genetic drift?
Alan Fox,
Drift occurs to some degree for any allele, neutral or otherwise. And the assumption that it is mostly about small populations is based on an implicit view that populations of any size are mixed with equal vigour. Drift can create pockets of variation in a population of any size. This is an important source of variation.
Alan,
Now see if you can understand the concepts behind what you just quoted or paraphrased.
You’ve been confused about drift for a pretty long time. If we do a thread on the topic, we can review some of your earlier comments and the confusions they evince.
In this thread, the odd thing was your statement below, to which both Allan and I reacted:
Why on earth would a lack of references to drift tempt you to read the book? Whence the drift phobia?