{"id":66600,"date":"2020-01-09T14:45:04","date_gmt":"2020-01-09T14:45:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/?p=66600"},"modified":"2020-01-09T14:45:05","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T14:45:05","slug":"divergence-of-character-myth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/divergence-of-character-myth\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2019Divergence of Character\u2019 Myth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As shown repeatedly, \u201cNothing in Evolution Makes Sense. Period.\u201d Not natural selection, gradualism, human evolution, UCD, tree of life, etc. And just to confirm, let’s look at another one of the nonsensical concepts of “evolution”. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
  1. \u2018Divergence of character\u2019 (character displacement or sympatric speciation) postulates:<\/strong> \u201cduring the incessant struggle of all species to increase in numbers, the more diversified these descendants become, the better will be their chance of succeeding in the battle of life. Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera\u201d (Darwin 1859). Sympatric speciation is hypothesized as \u201cthe evolution of a new species from a surviving ancestral species while both continue to inhabit the same geographic region\u201d.<\/li>
  2. \u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 is the biological law that overrules passive \u2018Divergence of Character\u2019. <\/strong>Any homogeneous population can be sorted statistically on various biologic metrics, usually resulting in a Gaussian (normal) distribution that is conserved over time in the absence of major environmental changes (as Mendel first showed; Fig 1&2). \u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 is thus the rule that causes the progeny of extreme individuals to be less extreme than their parents. Two outstanding tall parents will have statistically shorter children, and the progeny of the most and least intelligent\/strong\/aggressive\/attractive\/etc. will be more average than the parent. Many of the extremes have no descendants at all due to their limitations, and thus their \u201ccontribution\u201d to the next generation is simply the average individual. <\/li>
  3. In stable environments, population variability is extremely well conserved from generation to generation<\/strong> (Fig 3) as documented by the fossil and many other records. \u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 is thus a mathematical necessity without which a passive \u2018divergence of character\u2019 would be observed in very few generations (Fig 4). \u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 mechanism is incredibly accurate and allows for conservation of traits over thousands upon thousands of generations as observed. Scientists were rightfully surprised that ancient bacteria and many other fossils as well as mummified organisms including cats and monkeys are indistinguishable from their contemporary descendants. At a minimum, the number of organisms that show remarkable stability over long periods (living fossils) invalidate the \u2018General Divergence\u2019 theory. Does a limited, \u2018Special Divergence\u2019 hypothesis still make sense? <\/li>
  4. Observed long term regression is highly unexpected and contrary to \u2018divergence of character\u2019 and \u2018drift\u2019 hypotheses. <\/strong>\u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 operates in the longest term observed, whenever environmental conditions are restored following significant changes that led to adaptive mutations. Most – if not all – organisms are endowed with a limited \u2018plasticity\u2019 trait that allows them to retain adaptive characteristics for generations. And yet, when the stimulus that caused the adaptation disappears, these organisms regress rather than maintaining those adaptive traits or accumulating even more diverging ones. Darwin\u2019s finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistant bacteria and the domesticated plants & animals – all these and more have been observed to regress to the old mean when the adaptive stressor is removed, thus disproving even the limited, \u2018Special Divergence\u2019 hypothesis. These are not coincidences! The regression can happen over a few generations as in most epigenetic changes, many generations, and even the indefinite future if the adaptive stimulus is maintained (such as in domestication). Biologic variability can be compared to a loaded spring – the more it stretches, the harder the pull back (regression to the mean) and the more fragile is the extreme variant population. Domesticated plants and animals show that crossbreeds are resilient, while pure breeds are fragile showing that extinction of the extremes is the default outcome that promotes the \u2018regression to the mean\u2019 of the extended population.<\/li>
  5. Adaptation neither demands not implies divergence in any way.<\/strong> What about the \u2018adaptive radiation\u2019 seen in Darwin\u2019s finches, the cichlids of the African Great Lakes, and others? Is this not \u2018divergence of character\u2019? No. The driving force in all these and more is adaptation, not divergence even if \u201cevolution\u201d were true. Organisms just seek survival and, if their built-in yet limited plasticity matches the environmental challenges, these populations survive as variants. Otherwise, they simply go extinct like many others before. The new traits are not \u2018divergent\u2019 as shown by all known<\/em> cases of reversals (as discussed) and none of further divergence when the adaptive stressor is removed. If \u2018divergence of character\u2019 were true, adaptive plasticity traits would be cumulative and sticky even after the adaptive stressor was removed, and the more extreme variants would be at least as resilient as the mean. Furthermore, experiments would show increasing variability over time in all research organisms and even more so in the short lived ones like bacteria. There would not be any distinct \u201cspecies\u201d and organisms would freely undergo metamorphosis (transmutation) into one another. Differential survival and randomness would eliminate all but the \u201cbest adapted\u201d allele, therefore the Mendelian conservation of alleles would not be observed. Yet none of these are happening, thus falsifying the \u2018divergence of character\u2019 hypothesis.<\/li>
  6. Adaptation is \u201cfast and done\u201d, \u201cdo or die\u201d by necessity, unlike the supposed \u201cslow and ongoing\u201d \u2018divergence of character\u2019.<\/strong> If adaptation is not fast enough, the population simply goes extinct as many others did. The cichlids of Lake Victoria had less than 15,000 years to adapt and are as diverse if not more so than the cichlids in the other, much older African Great Lakes. But they do not need even that much time as the newer aquarium varieties obtained in a few generations show. Most likely, cichlids variants have come and gone throughout the history of all African Great Lakes in short cycles of adaptation. And that is why the cichlid biodiversity difference between a few years (Lake Victoria) and millions of years (other African Great Lakes) is unremarkable. The only remarkable fact is that cichlids have a predominantly Gondwanan distribution showing that in 180+ mil years, they did not adapt to ocean living despite their otherwise high adaptability. This clearly shows the limitations of adaptability and makes it an unlikely substitute to \u2018divergence of character\u2019. Darwin\u2019s finches, peppered moths, bacteria, and many other also adapt fast or die as observed. And when the stimulus disappears, they revert just as quickly, and later readapt to whatever new stimulus they face or simply die out trying as confirmed. It is a very good thing \u2018divergence of character\u2019 is false, or else antibiotic resistant bacteria and other superbugs would have killed mankind by now as \u201cevolution\u201d falsely predicted.<\/li>
  7. Statistical evidence refutes \u2018divergence of character\u2019.<\/strong> According to the theory, \u201cwhen organisms compete for scarce resources, natural selection should favor those individuals that are least like their competitors\u201d. And since organisms always \u201ccompete for scarce resources\u201d, the least average members of a homogenous population should always be favored by \u201cnatural selection\u201d. If so, the well known normal distribution of any organism dimension (length, height, weight, etc.) should always be under pressure to change. We should see groups of \u201cleast like\u201d the average form second, third, and so on normal distributions of their own, thus reshaping the original normal distribution into a composite distribution with several peaks and valleys as in Fig 5. And even that should not be adequate, as any concentration of similar individuals would be disadvantaged according to the \u2018Divergence of character\u2019 hypothesis, thus leading to uniform distributions as in Fig 4. However, neither Fig 5 nor uniform distributions are seen in homogeneous populations. Instead, we always see normal distributions. And since we see the normal distribution maintained over arbitrary number of generations and no hint of transitioning to a uniform distribution, the \u2018Divergence of character\u2019 hypothesis must be discarded. A trend not supported by several period observations must be discarded as noise artifact<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em> This is the case for all examples considered including Darwin\u2019s finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistant bacteria, cichlids, etc. All seem somewhat supportive of the divergence hypothesis over carefully chosen periods, yet the divergence is clearly illusory over longer periods.<\/li>
  8. Are the bear of North America not like Fig 5? Yes, but they occupy different geographic regions.<\/strong> They are not homogenous. Indeed, we do encounter subfamilies of organisms, that have normally distributed metrics within the subgroup yet clearly distinct from those of other subgroups. However, where these subgroups overlap, the blend is always geographic and never biologic, meaning we see fewer of one kind and more of the other when moving from one\u2019s territory to the others\u2019 instead of blended characteristics as \u2018divergence of character\u2019 would predict. Humans are not different \u201cspecies\u201d although various subgroups are exclusively vegan\/carnivorous, white\/black, extra small\/large. And domesticated organisms including canids are even more diverse than humans. Are the wild cichlids, finches, mice, and others qualitatively different than humans and canids? No. Then why the different \u201cspecies\u201d, many of which, ironically, are threatened by hybridization? The unwarranted inflation of \u201cspecies\u201d that do not even meet the loosest definition of reproductive isolation has the sole purpose of perpetuating the myth of \u2018divergence of character\u2019<\/em><\/strong>.<\/li>
  9. Multimodal distributions in homogenous populations are not due to \u2018divergence of character\u2019.<\/strong> Indeed, bimodal distributions (Fig 2) and multimodal distributions are not uncommon in homogenous populations. However, these are due to the discreteness of physics in general and biology in particular, not due to \u2018divergence of character\u2019. Male and female populations are not diverging from one another and various alleles are in long term cyclical equilibrium as shown (spring model). \u2018Drift\u2019 is often invoked as a mechanism of \u2018divergence of character\u2019. This is wrong because \u2018drift\u2019 explains nothing as it is either aimless noise or due to adaptation and environmental change. Yet, as shown, adaptation is in no way \u2018divergence of character\u2019. In addition, the stable coexistence of several distinct variants within a homogenous population shows \u201cgradualism\u201d, \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d, and \u201cnatural selection\u201d to be false because the alleles responsible are themselves distinct (no \u201cgradualism\u201d), they all \u201csurvive\u201d, and neither is \u201cselected\u201d for or against.  <\/li>
  10. Darwin worried about regression to the mean for the wrong reasons.<\/strong> Namely, if blending inheritance (Darwin laid an egg) was true, then natural selection could not be true. Darwin puzzled over this a lot, but ended up with nothing satisfactory. Then Mendel showed that inheritance is discrete, not blended. Mendelian Inheritance Tables (see Punnett squares \/ Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) show \u201cprobabilistic traits conservation\u201d and thus disproving \u2018divergence of character\u2019 (at least as byproduct of reproduction) as well as dismissing \u201cgradualism\u201d<\/a> (another one of Darwin\u2019s unsupported claims).<\/li>
  11. When entire populations split, do subgroups diverge from one another?<\/strong> This is not how \u2018divergence of character\u2019 is supposed to work.Descendants are supposed to diversify within the homogenous population. Furthermore, populations split by environmental conditions simply adapt to the new environment and for as long as those conditions allow. Adaptation is the driving force with no \u2018divergence of character\u2019 anywhere in sight. Island biology is the most diverse because islands are isolated and have many microenvironments. However, island variants are close descendants of their original colonists, showing that no divergence ever happened. Their risk of hybridization is high, disproving the \u201cspeciation\u201d claim. They are also fragile examples of the extreme stretched biological spring model discussed, and will likely go extinct if at all stressed and when interacting with mainland. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Summary:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1.\n\u2018Regression to the mean\u2019 is the biological law that overrules passive \u2018Divergence\nof Character\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2.\nIn stable environments, population variability is extremely well conserved from\ngeneration to generation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3.\nObserved long term regression is highly unexpected and contrary to \u2018divergence\nof character\u2019 and \u2018drift\u2019 hypotheses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4.\nAdaptation neither demands not implies \u2018divergence of character\u2019 in any way<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    5.\nAdaptation is \u201cfast and done\u201d, \u201cdo or die\u201d by necessity, unlike the supposed\n\u201cslow and ongoing\u201d \u2018divergence of character\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    6.\nAdaptation has limited powers and is thus not a substitute for \u2018divergence of\ncharacter\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    7.\n\u2018Divergence of character\u2019 hypothesis would lead to uniform rather than normal\n(Gaussian) distributions as observed in homogenous populations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    8.\nA trend not supported by several period observations must be discarded as noise\nartifact <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    9.\nThe unwarranted inflation of \u201cspecies\u201d that do not even meet the loosest definition\nof reproductive isolation has the sole purpose of perpetuating the myth of \u2018divergence\nof character\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    10.\nMultimodal distributions in homogenous populations are not due to \u2018divergence\nof character\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    11.\nMendelian tables show \u201cprobabilistic traits conservation\u201d, disproving\n\u2018divergence of character\u2019 (at least as byproduct of reproduction), as well as\ndismissing \u2018gradualism\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    12.\nIsland biology proves adaptation and the biologic spring model while disproving\n\u2018divergence of character\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    13.\nWhat\u2019s in, what\u2019s out? IN: \u2018regression to the mean\u2019, \u2018adaptation\u2019,\ncoexisting variants, long term stability, spring model, normal distributions. OUT:\n\u2018divergence of character\u2019, gradualism, drift, speciation, uniform\ndistributions, \u201cnatural selection\u201d, \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d, \u201cevolution\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/ucmp.berkeley.edu\/bacteria\/bacteriafr.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2019\/10\/191018112136.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC3285564\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC3352989\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/www.sciencemag.org\/news\/2018\/11\/cannibalistic-tadpoles-and-matricidal-worms-point-powerful-new-helper-evolution<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    http:\/\/www.galton.org\/essays\/1880-1889\/galton-1886-jaigi-regression-stature.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Character_displacement<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sympatric_speciation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/www.bionity.com\/en\/encyclopedia\/Character_displacement.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/biologydictionary.net\/divergent-evolution\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Cichlid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/biology.stackexchange.com\/questions\/41982\/regression-to-the-mean-and-evolution<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Blood_parrot_cichlid<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    As shown repeatedly, \u201cNothing in Evolution Makes Sense. Period.\u201d Not natural selection, gradualism, human evolution, UCD, tree of life, etc. And just to confirm, let’s look at another one of the nonsensical concepts of “evolution”. Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":69167,"featured_media":66607,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[604,603,570,605,606],"class_list":["post-66600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-evolution","tag-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-and-the-domesticated-plants-animals","tag-cichlids-of-the-african-great-lakes","tag-darwins-finches","tag-divergence-of-character","tag-regression-to-the-mean"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/69167"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66600\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/theskepticalzone.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}