The ‘How Many Theories Of Evolution Are There?’ Thread

Posted on by

Certain commentators seem surprisingly agitated about pursuing the idea that there is no ‘theory of evolution’. Some mean there is no single theory, although on examination the things they see as separate are frequently simply different components of the same broad process. Or, alternatively, they are referring to evolution in other senses, or in non-biological contexts. Others say there is no theory at all, as if that against which they argue does not even exist.

A theme has emerged that TSZ is somehow suppressing their concerns. So, in the spirit of suppressive dictatorships everywhere, here is a thread for people to say whatever they want about this vital topic. Hopefully without pasting in vast swathes of something already posted elsewhere – a link will suffice.

Here, for my part, is my very broad summary of ‘the’ theory of evolution: Genetic changes (mutation, recombination) are subject to a sampling process, correlated to a greater or lesser extent with their effects on survival and reproduction. This process leads to a simultaneous increase and decrease in frequency for the variants in the population, through to, in the limit, extinction or fixation of a variant. This process proceeds indefinitely, subject to the fuel of new variation. All commonly accepted*** ‘theories of [biological***] evolution’ of which I am aware place emphasis on different components, influences and consequences of this basic process. None, so far as I am aware, are at odds with it, which might be expected if there really were ‘different theories’.

*** The caveats are inserted to try to head off anticipated ‘gotchas’, in a possibly forlorn attempt to reduce opportunities to make semantic capital out of a phrase whose intent should be easy enough to understand without them. This is not ‘biologism’: the ToE which upsets people is (are?) the generally accepted biological one.

323 thoughts on “The ‘How Many Theories Of Evolution Are There?’ Thread”

  1. Alan Fox:

    Natural selection is blind and mindless.

    OK, I can agree with that.

    I don’t agree with the “blind” part. Natural selection is the one part of the process that has visibility, so to speak, into the fitness of the phenotype. It seems to me to be the only non-blind part of evolution.

  2. Tom English: Frankie Joe is saying what Marks, Dembski, and Ewert are saying. He’s simply not as good as they are at fancy obfuscation of stupid stuff.

    I don’t need it. All I need are the facts and I stated them. The facts say weasel is an example of IDE

  3. Frankie:
    . . .
    No and you don’t know what a nested hierarchy is. Transitional forms would ruin any attempt at forming one.
    . . . .

    Could you please provide your definition of “nested hierarchy” and your support for this very strange claim?

  5. Patrick: Could you please provide your definition of “nested hierarchy” and your support for this very strange claim?

    Already have, hundreds of times. Denton dealt with it in “Evolution: a theory in crisis”. Nested hierarchies are sets within sets- strict and distinct sets without any overlap- see Linnaean taxonomy which has nothing to do with evolution.

    See also “Arrival of the Fittest”:

    The goals of scientists like Linnaeus and Cuvier- to organize the chaos of life’s diversity- are much easier to achieve if each species has a Platonic essence that distinguishes it from all others, in the same way that the absence of legs and eyelids is essential to snakes and distinguishes it from other reptiles. In this Platonic worldview, the task of naturalists is to find the essence of each species. Actually, that understates the case: In an essentialist world, the essence really is the species. Contrast this with an ever-changing evolving world, where species incessantly spew forth new species that can blend with each other. The snake Eupodophis from the late Cretaceous period, which had rudimentary legs, and the glass lizard, which is alive today and lacks legs, are just two of many witnesses to the blurry boundaries of species. Evolution’s messy world is anathema to the clear, pristine order essentialism craves. It is thus no accident that Plato and his essentialism became the “great antihero of evolutionism,” as the twentieth century zoologist Ernst Mayr called it.- Andreas Wagner, “Arrival of the Fittest”, pages 9-10

    Nested hierarchies require the pristine world of essentialism.

  6. Frankie: Already have, hundreds of times. Denton dealt with it in “Evolution: a theory in crisis”. Nested hierarchies are sets within sets- strict and distinct sets without any overlap- see Linnaean taxonomy which has nothing to do with evolution.

    Okay, not really a proper definition, but perhaps we can work with it. What problem do transitional forms pose to nested hierarchies?

  7. Patrick: Okay, not really a proper definition, but perhaps we can work with it.What problem do transitional forms pose to nested hierarchies?

    The problem Wagner wrote of in “Arrival; of the fittest”. For example given group mammal and group reptil, where do you place mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals? You have to shorten your classification criteria and add more sets. One organism can only belong to one set on each level.

  8. Patrick:

    OK, I can agree with that.

    I don’t agree with the “blind” part.Natural selection is the one part of the process that has visibility, so to speak, into the fitness of the phenotype. It seems to me to be the only non-blind part of evolution.

    Blind in the sense of there being no foresight. Organisms live, reproduce, die. The environment “decides” in the present. We live in the present. Actually Frankie’s link to Jerry Coyne is quite apt. I wonder if Frankie read it.

  9. Frankie: Nested hierarchies are sets within sets- strict and distinct sets without any overlap

    How can a set “within” a set, not overlap with the set it’s contained in?

  10. The defining property of nested hierarchies is summativity:

    –
    Summativity– The sum of all entities at one level of organization is equal to the sum of all entities at some other level- Knox “The use of hierarchies as organizational models of systematics” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63:1-49, page 8

    For example in Linnean taxonomy*, ie a nested hierarchy, the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all of the levels and entities below it. It is the sum of its parts.

    Linnean Classification:

    The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a
    kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups
    organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within
    boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

    Looking closer at the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the animal kingdom. To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal:

    All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.

    Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions.

    The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria.

    For example one phylum under the Kingdom Animalia, is Chordata.

    Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:

    Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

    bilateral symmetry
    segmented body, including segmented muscles
    three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.
    single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)
    tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development
    pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development
    ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system
    complete digestive system
    bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.

    The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

    This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics. That is how containment is kept and summativity is met.

    (NOTE: evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.)

    An Army can also be put into a nested hierarchy- with the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme.

    The Army consists of and contains, soldiers- it exhibits summativity.

    See also the summary of the principles of hierarchy theory:

    The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged
    as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work
    of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean
    Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of
    scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.

    Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the
    biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and
    hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of
    hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep
    track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A
    set of definitions and principles follows immediately:

    Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In
    less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric
    relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower
    levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships
    downwards.

    Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties
    characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of
    levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For
    example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii)
    primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship
    of the level in question to those above and below.

    Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by
    virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and
    below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities
    from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There
    is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that
    some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin
    parasites.

    Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by
    virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin
    parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a
    landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of
    organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a
    population.

    The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are
    two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the
    observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines
    the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The
    criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to
    each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for
    observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead
    to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate
    isolated classes.

    The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other
    levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but
    sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels
    by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving
    more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with
    greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being
    made of – lower levels.

    Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels
    which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more
    general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For
    example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them.
    Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of
    a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command
    is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking
    orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

    To achieve summativity the criteria “consist of and contain” must be met. NOTE- A parent population does NOT consist of nor contain it’s daughter populations. That is why any tree of life is not a nested hierarchy.

  11. Alan Fox: I don’t agree with the “blind” part.Natural selection is the one part of the process that has visibility, so to speak, into the fitness of the phenotype. It seems to me to be the only non-blind part of evolution.

    Blind in the sense of there being no foresight. Organisms live, reproduce, die. The environment “decides” in the present.We live in the present. Actually Frankie’s link to Jerry Coyne is quite apt. I wonder if Frankie read it.

    I wonder if Alan understands it

  12. OK so have we established that the alleged modern theory of evolution and the blind watchmaker thesis are one in the same?

  13. dazz: How can a set “within” a set, not overlap with the set it’s contained in?

    FrankenJoe is known far and wide for his ignorance and butchery of nested hierarchies. Many many people have tried to explain simple concepts to FrankenJoe, many many people have failed. Get ready for a C&Ped shitstorm of random non-sequiturs about nested hierarchies followed by proclaiming himself the victor.

  15. dazz: How can a set “within” a set, not overlap with the set it’s contained in?

    A set that contains sets, where the contained sets do not overlap. Is that so hard?

  17. People have tried to school me in the incorrect version of nested hierarchies. Yet every time I end up schooling them. Wagner explains why evolution doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy. With transitional forms overlapping sets would be the norm. With nested hierarchies overlapping sets are forbidden.

    adapa’s accusations are demonstrably false and thoroughly refuted.

  19. Patrick: Trying to cross the Frankie and FFM streams.Bold move.There’s definitely a very slim chance we’ll survive.

    Evidently FirstFrankieMan (FFM) has already insinuated himself into your subconscious mind.

  24. Kantian Naturalist:
    Hold the presses!

    Are you guys trying to say that theories have histories? And that a theory can posit more than one mechanism? And that sometimes scientific concepts are analogical constructions from non-scientific domains?

    Oh, you wacky evolutionary biologists! What will you think of next?

    This is funny. Now the evolutionists want to argue that it doesn’t matter what the mechanisms for evolution are, just that there are some mechanisms, and apparently that might make things change (perhaps..the theory is being worked on).

    So like the mechanism might be random mutations. But it also might be naturally engineered change. Or maybe Lamarckian change. Or perhaps the change we see is due to intelligent mosquitoes telling the DNA what to do. Or maybe the change is caused by the color of light one gets throughout their existence. If one gets a certain chartreuse color exposure approaching 4.3 hours in a single day, it not only makes them queasy, it leads to gay children, with brown hair, that are good at javelin throwing. But that’s not important.

    So, can the mechanism for evolution be, say, a God? You know that changes things when he feels like it? Based on the results of his divine Texas Hold-em poker results? Well, yes, I guess, since we are not married to any one specific mechanism, technically…..You know there can be lots of kinds of flowers, ask Walto. And heck, there isn’t foods right, there is just food, ask Tom English.

    WAIT WAIT, hold it right there! We evolutionist can all agree, it doesn’t matter what the mechanisms are, right. But no God playing Texas Hold em OK! OK???

    Keep going evolutionists, please. I am enjoying this. “Change (or not), married to some mechanisms. And maybe its beneficial.”

    I am loving it. New textbooks for everyone! Who says there is no theory of evolution!!

  25. Mung:
    By the way, is anyone keeping count, or is the question of the OP title rhetorical?

    Food Mung! Not foods!!

  26. Surely I’m not the only person who recalls the enormous volume of ID propaganda about the monolithic Darwinian Establishment. What’s a propagandist to do, when it becomes utterly impossible to sustain the lie? Start telling the opposite lie, of course.

  28. Tom English: Call me a comma snob, but Food Mung reads like the name of a bucket next to Coffee Mung.

    Apparently you are not much of a mechanisms snob however. Whatever works is just fine.

    As long as it doesn’t wear a long robe!

  29. Frankie:
    People have tried to school me in the incorrect version of nested hierarchies. Yet every time I end up schooling them. Wagner explains why evolution doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy. With transitional forms overlapping sets would be the norm. With nested hierarchies overlapping sets are forbidden.

    adapa’s accusations are demonstrably false and thoroughly refuted.

    Allopathic speciation, fossilization processes….oh shit. I am trying to explain simple and well understood processes to FrankenJoe. You can lead a jackass to water, ….

  30. Frankie:
    OK so have we established that the alleged modern theory of evolution and the blind watchmaker thesis are one in the same?

    I’m confused. I thought that there was no theory of evolution. Can you link to the supposed theory that you say does not exist? And if you can’t, does it mean that it must exist? And if it exists, does it mean that ID does not exist? And if ID does not exist, does that mean that god does not exist? And if God doesn’t exist, does that mean that there is no truth? And if there is no truth, does that mean that frequency equals wavelength? Wait, now I understand your logic. Well played FrankenJoe, well played.

  31. phoodoo: Apparently you are not much of a mechanisms snob however. Whatever works is just fine.

    Name something in ID that, in some practical sense, actually works better as an explanation of the data than does the existing science, and does not simply make you feel that the truth, in your religious conception of it, has been told.

  32. Tom English: Name something in ID that, in some practical sense, actually works better as an explanation of the data than does the existing science, and does not simply make you feel that the truth, in your religious conception of it, has been told.

    You mean you would like to change the title of this OP to “How many theories of ID are there?” How about for another thread?

    But in answer to your question, if the existing science (and this is clearly what is being indicated here) is that some mechanisms, any mechanisms, mechanisms we are not sure of and can’t name, are responsible for variation, and that variation may or may not have some advantages-then things will just so happen to become, luckily.

    If that is the existing science, then WITHOUT A DOUBT a theory which says life was designed by an intelligent force to become what it is, is a far far better and more parsimonious theory.

    “Food not foods” is not a very impressive theory.

  35. Tom English: Name something in ID that, in some practical sense, actually works better as an explanation of the data than does the existing science, and does not simply make you feel that the truth, in your religious conception of it, has been told.

    What existing science are you talking about, Tom? Evolutionism- the alleged modern ToE- isn’t science as it makes untestable claims.

  36. Tom English:
    Surely I’m not the only person who recalls the enormous volume of ID propaganda about the monolithic Darwinian Establishment.

    Surely you are and surely you cannot support your claim

  38. Alan Fox: Seems like a reasonable idea.

    Don’t forget “laws of nature” and the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” when talking about ID theories. We’ve seen LCI for specified complexity and LCI for active information. It appears that not even the latter will make its way into the new book by Marks, Dembski, and Ewert.

  39. Tom English: Don’t forget “laws of nature” and the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” when talking about ID theories. We’ve seen LCI for specified complexity and LCI for active information. It appears that not even the latter will make its way into the new book by Marks, Dembski, and Ewert.

    Let’s hope Winston Ewert has time to chip in and advise us on the state of play in the new thread.

  40. Alan Fox: Let’s hope Winston Ewert has time to chip in and advise us on the state of play in the new thread.

    Ewert is clueless. George Montañez has been reading criticisms over the years, and has actually made an effort to respond to them in his latest paper. He’s a very bright guy. But, as a doctoral candidate at Carnegie Mellon, he ought not spend time on stuff like this.

  41. Frankie,

    Allan: All Sermonti is doing is making assertions.

    Frankie: Nope, his opinion is based on years of observation, experimentation- his own as well as others.

    Still an assertion, however much based on yadda yadda yadda. He doesn’t seem to know much about ecology, this expert of yours. What do you expect from a geneticist? 😉 I think I will dismiss him as a clueless hack. There! That was easy.

    Allan: Evolution cannot happen because domesticated animals will probably die off if we didn’t look after them.

    Frankie: 1- That isn’t what he is saying

    That is exactly what he says, in para 1 at least. ‘Die off or revert to the wild’ anyway. Then a few examples of ‘loss-of-function’. If some things might die off, lose function or ‘revert to the wild’, EVERYTHING will … probably. Not the most robust of syllogisms. His prose is quite pleasant, I’ll give him tat. Sorry, that.

  42. Frankie,

    OK so have we established that the alleged modern theory of evolution and the blind watchmaker thesis are one in the same?

    No. The Blind Watchmaker was the snappy title of a popular book aimed at a lay audience.

  43. Mung,

    By the way, is anyone keeping count, or is the question of the OP title rhetorical?

    It was somewhat rhetorical, though I was actually interested to see what people actually meant when they said these (to me) odd things.

    But so far, no-one seems willing to give the ball laying at their feet even a desultory punt, despite the opportunity provided. Just paste a bunch of crap that’s been pasted a million times (that’s rhetorical exaggeration).

  44. phoodoo,

    But it also might be naturally engineered change. Or maybe Lamarckian change. Or perhaps the change we see is due to intelligent mosquitoes telling the DNA what to do.

    There is no evidence that these things contribute to the change in populations.

    Honestly, this is what you have trouble with? Things that aren’t part of the ToE confuse you as to what the ToE says? If I didn’t know better I would say you were feigning ignorance for rhetorical effect.

  45. phoodoo,

    But in answer to your question, if the existing science (and this is clearly what is being indicated here) is that some mechanisms, any mechanisms, mechanisms we are not sure of and can’t name, are responsible for variation, and that variation may or may not have some advantages-then things will just so happen to become, luckily.

    Foolish me, for not mentioning every allele, ever in my brief summary of the ToE. And every cause, ever, for every such allele’s arrival and subsequent incremental loss or gain in the population. I’m similarly slack when it comes to detailing the trajectories of every atom in every chemical reaction, including the history of every baryon and fermion back to the Big Bang (and Explain That while you’re at it, materialists!). I tend to gloss over these things, and hope no-one notices I have presented such a lampoonable Theory of Chemistry.

  46. Frankie:
    People have tried to school me in the incorrect version of nested hierarchies. Yet every time I end up schooling them. Wagner explains why evolution doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy. With transitional forms overlapping sets would be the norm. With nested hierarchies overlapping sets are forbidden.

    The claim that transitional forms require overlapping sets does not make sense. Try drawing a hierarchy of populations, generation by generation, through a speciation event. Where is the overlap?

  47. Patrick: The claim that transitional forms require overlapping sets does not make sense.Try drawing a hierarchy of populations, generation by generation, through a speciation event.Where is the overlap?

    A hierarchy of populations is not a nested hierarchy, Patrick. Linnaean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy wrt biology. And it doesn’t have anything to do with evolution.

  48. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    No. The Blind Watchmaker was the snappy title of a popular book aimed at a lay audience.

    Well if you had been following along it is just a label given for evolution via blind and mindless processes. And all alleged ToE’s posit evolution via blind and mindless processes. They all endorse blind watchmaker evolution.

  49. Frankie- The nested hierarchy supported by mainstream evolutionary biology is based on apparent descent, not morphological characteristics. So the hierarchy led by Species A includes Species A and all organisms descended from that species. On this view, Mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals belong to the hierarchies headed by their ancestors, not to “mammals” or “reptiles”.

    So there is no problem with transitional forms. And there is no problem with losses of characteristics either. Organisms at say level two of the hierarchy have the characteristic of being descended from their most recent common ancestor (level one). Their level 3 descendants also all have the characteristic of being descended from the level one ancestor. They are separated based on which of the level 2 ancestors they descended from.

  50. Frankie,

    Well if you had been following along it is just a label given for evolution via blind and mindless processes. And all alleged ToE’s posit evolution via blind and mindless processes. They all endorse blind watchmaker evolution.

    Nobody uses the term ‘blind watchmaker evolution’ as a synonym for the ToE. No-one knowledgeable, I should say.

    But – according to you, there is no theory of evolution. No wonder I can’t follow along; you can’t keep your story straight.

Leave a Reply