The challenge, for all and sundry but especially for “Darwin doubters”, should you wish to take it, is to submit a one-paragraph summary of the theory of evolution. The idea is to see if you understand it well enough to fairly summarize the theory so that you pass as a proponent of evolution. We also need some examples from proponents to test the null hypothesis!
To ensure anonymity, please submit your paragraph by private message to me or another admin and we will add it in edit. (Or email it to me at alanfox@free.fr if you prefer.)
Speculation and divination are enouraged in the comments!
ETA some degarbling!
First contribution:
The Theory of Evolution (hereafter referred to as just evolution is generally credited to Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, he described his observations regarding finches in the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that living organisms, when they reproduce, are reproduced with slight modifications. In essence that organisms descend with modification. The first crucial part of evolution is this basic idea. What we now refer to as descent with modification. Gradually, over much time, continual modifications are made to generations of descendants, and after much time, the descendants may be quite different in function and appearance than their ancestors. The first part of this theory was established prior to our current knowledge of DNA and genetics. After the discovery of DNA, and as we learned about how genes are copied, evolution was confirmed because we learned in fact that genetic s are not copied perfectly. Instead there are slight changes, we call random mutations. We now know that Charles Darwin’s ideas about descent with modification were correct and more precisely we know that those modifications happen through random mutation. The second crucial part of evolution is the idea of natural selection. When random mutations happen, they are mostly nonsignificant and have no bearing on an organisms ability to survive in their environmental niche. However, sometimes the random mutations are negative and those specimens die out quickly and don’t reproduce. For instance, albino rabbits are more easily seen and captured by the foxes than are rabbits that are brown. In other cases though, the random mutations result in positive changes to an organism in their given environmental context. These mutations allow the organisms to be more fit for their context and thus they are more successful at reproducing. Gradually over time, natural selection weeds out the less adapted versions in favor of the newer adaptations. An example of this can be seen in the black and white moth scenario in the UK. Together, Random mutation and natural selection along with ‘deep time’ make up the heart of the modern synthesis of evolution. The theory continues to readjust slightly over time with additional research. For example, recently, a minority of scientists (Kimura, et al) have emphasized simple descent with modification as the primary driver of evolution, though not totally discounting natural selection. In essence a neutral drift of the species mostly. There are other slight variations with the models, for instance Stephen J Gould famously proposed a punctuated equilibrium model as an alternative to the ‘gradualist’ model. In neither of the mentioned cases though was evolution rejected. Instead, proposed variations to the theory were given. There are generally some very convincing evidences for evolution. The fossil record and its various layers support the theory of evolution. The age of the universe supports evolution. Vestigial features such as the hair of the human arm standing on end when we are scared or cold provide compelling examples. Junk DNA provides powerful evidence of evolution. And the close relationship, DNA wise of chimps and humans provide strong evidence for evolution. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is generally considered outside the conversation of evolution and not strictly speaking part of evolutionary theory. Evolution gives a clear model for explaining the diversity and similarity of living things across the earth. Contrary to some opinions evolution doesn’t necessarily make any statement about theism or atheism.
Second contribution:
The theory of evolution is that biological organisms develop from one physical state to a different physical state by incremental steps through selection of successfully reproducing members of a population. Those successfully reproducing being due to mutations affecting members of a population and those members gaining a advantage in a environment of the moment. The mutations being the important element for biological change may mean also that selection is not needed in a population and so new populations may simply occur upon mutations alone. The evidence for the theory is from a system of close attributes in organisms demonstrated by a tree formation. These attributes are used to show a spectrum of biological relationship and so common descent to be demonstrated. Genetics and the fossil record are also essential evidences and based on attributes showing a spectrum of divergence. Other evidences based on comparison of attributes also are included. Starting from a hypothesis the accumulation of evidence and general explanatory weight has turned the hypothesis into a theory in biology. Within the evolutionary biology community there are important or notable differences in ideas on aspects of evolution however the core concept is a foundation.
Third submission:
Whether it is a court case or science, the capabilities and limits of causes of specific effects are crucial to deciding whether or not there is good reason to doubt the alleged cause or causes. Evolutionary theory lives or dies on the evidence of the specific effects caused by its capabilities and limits, as should any other claimed cause of life and its diversity. In simple form, evolution is caused by reproduction, which passes inherited information from parent to child, or from single cell to daughter cells, with considerable fidelity, but also with changes in that information called mutations. Detrimental mutations tend to be weeded out by natural selection, while natural selection tends to retain beneficial mutations, and over many generations intersecting and additive beneficial mutations may lead to new features, such as flight. Much more happens in evolution, like neutral or near-neutral mutations, bottlenecks, and genetic isolation (or not), but natural selection tending to eliminate what does not lead to reproductive success and favoring what facilitates reproductive success is usually thought to be the most important process. With these evolutionary processes in place there is considerable scope for impressive change over long periods of time, but there are also important limitations to it that mark evolved life with the evidence for evolution. Notably, while there is some genetic flow between reproductively separated lineages, especially in prokaryotes, polygenic traits are quite unlikely to be transferred to, for instance, vertebrates. Vertical transmission of DNA information predominates in most eukaryotes, and is quite evident in prokaryotes as well. The relative lack of portability of information across separate lineages shows up in the vertically derivative genomes of vertebrates in general, which is seen as nested hierarchies in taxonomy. The limitations of evolutionary processes apparently produce the patterns of life. An interesting example is to be found in the three types of flying vertebrates, bats, pterosaurs, and birds, which all share obvious yet fairly distant homologies, but whose flight adaptations are entirely uninformed by each other at all, apparently due to the fact that all three groups had diverged before each group evolved flight. The same evolutionary limits mean that birds do not have the fine auditory bones that evolved in mammals, while mammals do not have the improvements in eyesight that evolved in birds, such as the pecten (nor do mammals have the more efficient lungs of birds). Vestigial organs are a peculiar case of information retained that is no longer useful for a specific purpose (but may have other current uses), such as the tiny bones of the human coccyx that apparently evolved from tail vertebrae. The general trend of the fossil record is also what would be predicted by evolutionary theory, with amphibians needing dampness evolving first from fishes, then reptiles evolving for drier climates, while mammals and dinosaurs (including birds) evolved insulation for colder areas (among many other changes). “Transitional” forms like Archaeopteryx reveal the incomplete and inefficient adaptations expected from evolutionary processes that are mostly incapable of all but incremental change. The specific patterns and evolutionary developments visible in present life and in the fossil record point with consilience to a specific set of processes that we see happening today, the evolutionary processes of inheriting DNA information with some variations in that DNA, along with natural selection tending to retain reproductively helpful changes, while tending to eliminate reproductively harmful changes.
Fourth submission
The theory of evolution holds that there has been, and continues to be, change in form via change in the genetic makeup of organisms during the succession of a lineage – summarised as ‘descent with modification’. The primary source of these modifications is provided by mutation, arising from copy and repair errors and DNA damage, but also with significant contributions from recombination, gene transfer and transposition. Many changes are lost, but some become fixed, an inevitable consequence of the blind resampling process that is involved in a succession of generations in populations of finite size. Where a change is neutral, it may become fixed in a population through genetic drift alone. Where non-neutral, both drift and selection are involved. The change affects its own survival in the population, by influencing the rate at which it is passed on to descendants, when compared to the neutral expectation. Detrimental changes are more likely to be lost, and this will occur more rapidly on the average than neutral ones. Conversely, beneficial changes are more likely to become fixed, and again this is likely to happen more rapidly than the neutral case. These latter processes constitute the modern version of Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection, which lacked a sound genetic basis when first proposed, but nonetheless articulated the basic requirements of variation and excess of production over carrying capacity.
Within sexual populations, interbreeding tends to maintain an entire population in step, but where gene flow between such populations is reduced or eliminated, divergence is inevitable, leading to the phenomenon, at a moment in time, of multiple fixed and distinct types derived from the original single population. With increasing time, ongoing divergence leads to broader and broader taxonomic classifications with greater and greater difference between them, but all tracing back to simple population-level splits at varying depths in the time series.
According to wikipedia the test requires a neutral judge. Who’s the neutral judge in your test?
PopoHummel,
You all can be neutral judges (for the sake of this exercise) and attempt to place the summaries as real or fake. Welcome to TSZ, BTW.
What if there are multiple “theories of evolution” instead of “the theory of evolution” in singular form, as a rather clever Polish ‘theologian’ once suggested? How might that affect the Foxy singular definition ‘challenge’?
First contribution received!
Well, that might happen. You are welcome to submit an anonymous contribution, of course.
Stimpy: Hey Ren, Since my childhood I dreamed of Authenticity. Do you think it might really be possible to become a “proponent of evolution”?
Ren: Stimpy, you don’t know what you’re talking about, eat some more chips. No one becomes an ‘evolutionist.’ They are gods no dog can dream about becoming.
Wow – JOY personified!!! A test of one’s proponency! = )
How about let’s imagine you’re more than just a simple, little knowing “proponent of evolution” if you only accept evolutionary biologies. But if you go further and also believe in a singular thing called ‘the theory of evolution,’ in doing so – congratulations! – you qualify as a member of a new ‘universal evolutionist’ Tribe:
Welcome to THE EVOLUTIONARIAT, foxy style!
‘What’ might happen? That’s not answering a question posed to Alan. Make-believe skeptic arguing with self not other. He’d have better just bluffed with ‘so what?’ Strike #1.
Alan Fox issues a contest to define “the theory of evolution” while it is widely recognised that there is not one, but rather there are many theories of evolution, i.e. many evolutionary theories. What a silly challenge from Alan! 😉
That multiple theories may emerge.
ETA: rather – multiple “theories”!
This should be interesting. Hopefully the Creationists here are not so completely uninformed as to try to pull a “Hovind” 😉
You should be able to demonstrate that by submitting many (or at least a couple) of theories, then.
Are you that blind as to not see them already existing? Why wait for them to emerge when they’re already here, Alan?
It’s the kind of simple mistake any person who had taken a 100 level university course in philosophy of science wouldn’t make.
But Alan has made it. Let’s see what kind of man he is to admit it and offer a solution.
I meant emerge in the replies that I’m hoping that we get from Darwin skeptics who think they understand and can fairly represent evolutionary theory.
Sure, I made the mistake of not wrapping up my reply in sufficient caveats. I’ll try and be clearer. There is one current theory of evolution. There may be many ways of summarizing it. There are many more ways of misunderstanding it.
The OP challenges those who think they know what evolutionary theory is to submit a summary in their own words. The comment section is then intended for anyone to try and guess whether the various (I hope some more offers will arrive) submissions are from proponents or skeptics of evolutionary theory. This isn’t complicated.
I’m not sure it’s true that there is one current theory of evolution. It depends on how one individuates theories.
Does the extended synthesis count as a different theory than the modern synthesis? Is niche selection a different theory of evolution or a new mechanism of evolutionary change? Is evo-devo a different theory? Is punctuated equilibrium a new theory of evolution by virtue of being a new theory about the tempo and rate of evolutionary change? What about the debates between the ultra-adaptationists and the neutralists? Is genetic drift it’s own theory?
Up to a point, Lord Copper! What I’m hoping is that at least a few people will anonymously submit their own summary of what they understand as the theory of evolution.
I’m doubtful that there are alternative evolutionary theories that, for instance, rely on different mechanisms other than heritable variation and selection. Of course, I’m open to correction.
I’d say developments rather than differences. The vehicle of heritability, the mechanisms of variation and selection remain unchanged.
I’m not convinced by the idea that drift contributes as a positive element to evolution but that’s just me.
Are there now, or especially, were there in the past, several theories of plate tectonics? Just because there were many variants and uncertainties about specific mechanisms (did upwelling magma push plates apart, or did diverging lead to magma upwelling? The latter is gnerally accepted today) didn’t mean that there were several theories, and mostly it is and was considered to be one overarching theory or set of ideas, while some issues remained in flux. One might say that there were various models of an overall theory of plate tectonics, although I’m not sure if that was what geologists said when plate tectonics was rather new with a number of uncertainties.
To be sure, it’s far more a semantic affair than anything very important. However, it does seem to me that typically the overall set of ideas is considered to be “the theory,” while the details are worked out under the umbrella of what is considered to be “one theory.”
Glen Davidson
ROTFL! Foxy logic. There *IS* just ONE theory, whether anyone doubts that or not matters not. No argument could possibly constitute a real argument. Why not? Because otherwise that would mess up Alan’s single MONOLITHIC evolutionary theory challenge to ‘Darwin skeptics.’ LOL!
No, you made the mistake of being ignorant of the many evolutionary theories that already exist now. Trying to slither away won’t escape this blunder.
You seem to be confusing whether there is one evolutionary theory with whether the theory is any good or not. The Turing test challenge in the OP is to see if a Darwin skeptic can submit a summary of the theory consistent with the generally accepted version. Whether there could be more than one theory will emerge if there is a multiplicity of explanations that are consistent with Darwin’s original idea.
“To be sure, it’s far more a semantic affair than anything very important.”
Creationists often think they’re going to play word games and somehow evolutionary biology won’t work anymore. They’re kinda like sovereign citizens.
To slither away, I’d need to accept your unfounded premise that there are many (sic) evolutionary theories.
Support your assertion if you dare, Sir!
Gregory is on record as being very much anti “Intelligent Design”. He’s even a member of the “banned” (from UD).
Look, Alan, if you really don’t know that’s just a broadcast. It isn’t beholden on anyone else to make you do a little reading. Multiple evolutionary theories is as plain as day (news flash: recent Royal Society ‘new trends’ event).
Sure, we know what’s next. You’ll probably say you’ve avoided that reality to make it sufficiently ‘not exist’ for you simply by saying something like “it’s night where I am.”
Doesn’t really face the reality though, does it?
Talking of the “banned”, I can’t comment at Uncommon descent, so I wonder if there is somebody reading here who still has the ability to comment there and if they would like to pass on my invitation to any interested party to try the Evolutionary Turing Test. I’d much appreciate it.
Are you claiming someone from that event is proposing an alternative evolutionary theory? Well, tell us about it, then. Or at least link to it.
Where’s the beef, Gregory? Alternative evolutionary theories! Produce some! (just one, even!)
“Where’s the beef, Gregory?”
The multiple evolutionary theories. Go do a little reading and come back. You’ll see your error eventually.
But nothing would be easier than simply to admit there ALREADY are multiple evolutionary theories. Apparently reading is something Alan Fox is against. He just wants you to answer his survey first; he’ll do some reading later. 😉
It would be easier if someone could point one out. You really can’t be bothered to supply a link? Pardon me for wondering if there’s a simple explanation for that.
Larry Moran also recently contended that there are multiple “theories of evolution” (i.e. the theory of natural selection, the theory of random genetic drift, etc) that all collectively belong under the umbrella of The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
Which is why here is a question mark regarding drift as far as I am concerned. I’m not convinced drift can be described as an evolutionary process.
It would be easier if the Thread Author didn’t post ignorance and posturing instead of knowledge and honest curiosity.
Now, if there really is ONE single ‘evolutionary theory,’ Alan, as you so unwisely contend, at least you should be able to back THAT claim up, since it is stated in the OP as FACT, which is easily contestible.
About this mysterious ‘thing’ that you call ‘THE evolutionary theory,’ which you are wishing to run your faux ‘Turing’ experiment with, I have 3 questions:
1) How many authors of this single evolutionary theory are there?
2) When was this ‘single evolutionary theory’ first published and in what form?
3) Has anyone contested that single evolutionary theory and if so, who do you consider the top ‘contestor’?
Answering this may allow you an escape hatch of integrity. And it would save you from divulging any part of the ‘proper definition’ you seem to think you are in possession of. Right now you just look like a philosophical incompetent who is asking people to do what he couldn’t possibly do himself.
Why not?
Because there’s more than one theory of evolution.
Done
Do you accept Brownian Motion as a physical process? I suppose not.
The OP asks people to submit their own understanding of what evolutionary theory is. I’m not judging, sorting or censoring. The idea is to see if readers can spot submissions written by advocates and those written by skeptics. I’m hoping we get some more than the single example we have so far.
Any statement that draws on the idea of heritable variation and selection is a restatement of the basic theory. To refute my claim that there is one basic idea that encapsulates evolutionary theory – that of variation and selection – you only need to introduce an evolutionary that doesn’t draw on that basic idea. Easy for you, no?
Darwin was the first to publish a coherent account.
See 1.
Of all time? Darwin took his critics seriously. Fleeming Jenkin seems to have bothered Darwin most. There are no serious contenders today for a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution.
If there are indeed other evolutionary theories other than that based on heritable variation and selection, that will become undeniable as soon as you or someone else produces evidence. A link is all it would take.
TristanM,
Great, thanks!
3 names in Definition #1 – presumably by Alan himself: Darwin, “Kimura, et al.” & Gould.
Wow, comprehensive, covered THE ‘evolutionary’ bases, interdisciplinary?! 😉
Of course. And I think I understand that drift helps clear the genome of variation that allows space for more. I still don’t see it as an evolutionary process.
No, Alan, it does not. It reads “submit a one-paragraph summary of THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.”
They’re your words in case you didn’t read them before. They have singular and plural nouns in France, don’t they Alan? I studied the difference between an indefinite and a definite article in French language in school. Are you saying that you simply don’t understand the difference between ‘the’ and ‘a’, in your native English, Alan?
Royal Snooze. (Let the ignorant self-pomp continue without bother.)
Let’s suppose you are correct and there are multiple theories (rather than variations on a single theme). Instead of attacking Alan’s syntax, why not be responsive and present thumbnail sketches of at least two different theories (and maybe a comment on why they are different, so that an experiment could be constructed to verify their difference or even eliminate one of them).
While you’re at it, can you explain why the notion of no serious scientific alternative puts you to sleep? Why not present a serious scientific alternative to show that Alan is wrong?
Substance can make your posts interesting. Personal (and petty) attacks don’t substitute for substance, though you may enjoy making them.
Please re-read the rules and address the ideas not the person. You’ve crossed the line several times in this thread already.
I really don’t understand this nonsense about whether there is on theory or many. I don’t know anyone other than creationists that don’t understand that evolution involves many mechanisms (RM, selection, sexual selection, HGT, drift, etc). It is the relative importance of each, not their existence that is in question.
It’s simply a way for creationists to change the subject when they can’t answer the question honestly.
Alan Fox,
I really appreciate the effort you are putting in to this.
Might I suggest that a better approach would be a number of questions answered by individuals on both sides and then a contest to see if we can fool the judges into thinking we are on the opposing team.
That is how it was done in the original ideological Turing test and that approach seemed to be a useful
any way thanks again
peace
Yes, this could be fun. Let’s come up with as many ‘theories’ of evolution as we can. Or, if we don’t like that language, let’s come up with as many theories that *look like* the One True Theory of eVolution (OTTeVo) – “it’s just a biological theory, and has *nothing* to do with economics, psychology or cosmogony, right?” – but aren’t *really* the OTTeVo – “that one looks more like a replacement of eVo, like deVo, rather than an amendment” – so that we can see how close a machine (cybernetic organism) *could* (in theory) get to *looking like* IT (not he or she, i.e. not a human agent) IS (rather than the binary opposite “is not”) a “proponent of evolution” (foxy style).
Is that the suggestion from FMM? If so, don’t let me in any way stop you from doing this. 😉
Whisper heard behind the curtains at TSZ:
“What do we do now, fellow evolutionists? It doesn’t look good either way. Let’s choose not to choose.”
Voices concur in murmurs. “Ahaa.” “Guano.” “We don’t have to think about it if we don’t want to.” “Of course being skeptical is Optimus Prime position, duh.” “What if I’m skeptical about the reach of evolutionism?” “What does ‘trans-‘ actually mean?” “And what are we going to choose?”
More murmurs. “Why doesn’t he talk about the usual things ‘creationists’ talk about.” “He’s not one, you idiot.” Feet shuffling.
Time passes. “Purely rational solution?” “Mmm…”
Eventually: coin flip. No claim of result. Silence.
Child queries the scientists from the background: “It might not be that bad of an idea to confront trans-evolutionary change, so that we may discover what the limits of evolutionary theories actually are.”
As Mayor Lady on stage falls off shrieking: “We’ve just got to show them the OTTeVO….!!!”
Mayhem in the eVolutionariat.
It seems the religious think that the rest of the world runs on the same lines as their religion. Groups of men huddled in back rooms deciding what the congregation should be told.
Out current understanding of the world is a collaborative effort. It’s a feature, not a flaw, that there are competing theories that emphasise different components. After a suitable period of time there will be a single competitor left and we will move on to the next mystery.
And the rest of the world moves on, and your shrieking just fades into the distance along with the rest of the irrationals that have been holding the world back for so very long.
Meanwhile, back on topic, there are now three submissions for consideration. Guess whether they are from critics or proponents of evolutionary theory! And it would be great to see reasons for your answers.
For the first contribution I’m going with IDist, because he/she seems to suggest that drift is not part of the modern synthesis:
Also the reference to Punctuated Equilibrium seems like a huge giveaway:
Fails to note that this refers to a completely different “layer” of evolution and is not a variation of the molecular model
Although this is not really based on any potential misunderstanding of evolution, the use of the term “evidences” also points to a creationist source
Finally:
Is just plain silly and vague, and suggest this might be a YEC
Fails to note that Junk DNA is an observation, not a prediction of evolution, thus it can’t count as “powerful evidence of evolution” on it’s own
Of course I’m not a neutral judge, or even qualified to judge, but if this leads to any corrections of misunderstandings on my part, I’ll be glad to learn from my own mistakes
One final comment: this sounds like he/she believes that punctuated equilibrium may posit some sort of saltation, a common creationist tripe
My first law of ID Theory: All ID arguments boil down to Paleyism.
First corollary: There has been no progress in ID theory since Paley.
Hahaha, too true. It’s amazing how they manage to rehash the same old argument over and over again. I would argue there hasn’t been much progress since the ancient greeks first discussed their versions of the teleological argument