House advances different version of evolution bill

The House moved forward its own version of the "evolution academic freedom" act today, taking the Senate's bill number and striking all the Senate language in favor of its own. Sponsor Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, accepted an amendment from Rep. Marty Kiar, D-Davie, changing the language from requiring a "critical analysis" of evolution to require a "thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis" of the theory of evolution.

Kiar had argued that the bill as originally presented would have been unconstitutional, because it would mandate the introduction of all points critical of evolution, including religious points. He and others argued over and again that religion belongs in the place of worship, not in a classroom.

The debate was spirited, much along the same lines as that in the Senate. Hays ended by asking critics, "Why are you so afraid of scientific scrutiny if you're so confident in your theory?" He rejected the talk of pushing religion into schools as "hot air."

"This does not allow for religious teaching in the classroom. Again, ladies and gentlemen, it's about academic freedom," Hays said. The bill moved ahead to third reading, which cannot be amended. Key senators have indicated they did not expect to take up the measure again if it drastically differs from their already approved bill.

See the bill's progress here. To see the reaction from the Florida Citizens for Science, click here.

Comments

[Drew Smith]

From the article: Hays ended by asking critics, "Why are you so afraid of scientific scrutiny if you're so confident in your theory?"

I don't recall that "scientific scrutiny" is something that happens in any significant way in K-12 classrooms. That's what scientific peer-reviewed research journals and conferences are for.

[Mike]

I like that politics can do to science what a stranger can do to an 18 year old high schooler outside of a library late at night.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

For more information on the debate see Florida Citizens for Science at
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=562

[Larry Fafarman]

The Gradebook article says,
--"To see the reaction from the Florida Citizens for Science, click here. "--

The Florida Citizens for Science has no credibility. Brandon Haught(y) banned discussion of co-evolution on the FCS blog -- see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/co-evolution-theory-censored-by-florida.html

Those hypocritical Darwinists have no shame.

Though The Gradebook's authors now know that the Florida Citizens for Science has no credibility, I have no doubt that they will continue to favorably cite it.

[Chris W]

Larry:

Have you made any progress actually *understanding* coevolution instead of just memorizing and reciting the same example over and over again?

I can understand why you were banned at Florida Citizens for Science; you're like a big witless dog that keeps barking at imaginary squirrels all night long, or someone's car alarm that goes off at 3 am and won't turn off.

[Chris W]

Larry:

I read your blog comment thread, and the answer to my first question above is "no, you haven't made any progress". You insist on assuming that mutation is the only starting point for evolutionary change, and you keep up with the oversimplifications (land, air, and water are not "features of the environment"; they are the matrix of the environment).

You *have* read up on more canned counterexamples and you can recite them, but you still don't seem to understand them.

[Chris W]

Larry:

In the spirit of constructive interaction, here are some links to help you better understand coevolution from a not-from-creationist-with-an-agenda perspective:

http://www.santafe.edu/~pth/diss/diss/node5.html
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/dieckmann96dynamical.html
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/pagie98evolutionary.html
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/marrow96evolutionary.html
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/pagie02comparison.html

and I think that will get you started.

[Chris W]

Larry:

I tried to post some instructional links for you written by people who actually understand coevolution, but Wordpress's spam filter is on hyper-alert these days.

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris,
--"Have you made any progress actually *understanding* coevolution instead of just memorizing and reciting the same example over and over again?"--

I have not "memorized" anything -- they are my own original ideas.

So far as "progress" is concerned, Thomas Edison answered when he was accused of not making any progress in his efforts to create a practical electric light, "I've made lots of progress -- I now know lots of things that won't work."

--"I can understand why you were banned at Florida Citizens for Science; you're like a big witless dog"--

My arguments about co-evolution were banned because the FCS bloggers found them to be too persuasive. If my arguments about co-evolution were really bad, the FCS bloggers would keep them as examples of the weakness of the opposition. Thank goodness for this newspaper column where I can express my ideas freely without fear of censorship.

--"I read your blog comment thread . . .. . You insist on assuming that mutation is the only starting point for evolutionary change,"--

There can't be evolutionary change without mutations.

--"and you keep up with the oversimplifications (land, air, and water are not "features of the environment"; they are the matrix of the environment)."--

What is this about a "matrix" of the environment? The only universal physical feature of this "matrix" of the environment is the atmosphere. Otherwise there are different kinds of land and water, e.g., mountains, deserts, plains, forests, salt water, fresh water, and sea ice. My point is that these physical features of the environment constantly cover large areas and thus offer broad opportunities for evolutionary adaptation. In contrast, co-dependent traits in organisms initially cover only very small areas if they exist at all, and a co-dependent trait could be fatal or harmful in the absence of a corresponding co-dependent trait in another kind or organism, and even when not fatal or harmful in such absence would be of no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent in the other kinds of organisms.

--"You *have* read up on more canned counterexamples and you can recite them "--

No, as I said, the ideas are my own.

--"I tried to post some instructional links for you written by people who actually understand coevolution"--

I have seen a lot of those instructional links, and no, those people don't understand co-evolution -- they discuss co-evolution in vague terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure."

[Chris W]

Larry:

The land, air, and water are the matrix of the environment rather than "features" because they are the medium in which organisms move, eat, interact, and reproduce. Typically a "feature" is some measurable quality of some other entity (color, size, number of heads, etc.); it isn't an entity unto itself.

The instructional links I was trying to post were to the Santa Fe institute and CiteSeer (actual working and peer-reviewed papers where researchers were exploring and explaining how co-evolution actually *works*).

As to there being no evolutionary change without mutation, wrong as stated. If you meant "there is no evolution without genetic variation", that's a different story. Try this link for some background (hope WordPress lets it through):

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/evolution/genetics/sourcesofgeneticvariation.html

As to being banned because your arguments were "too persuasive", you're giving yourself too much credit. Your ideas are hard to refute because they're amateurish, incoherent and badly presented. You don't use terminology correctly, you make bad assumptions and then don't correct them (see "mutation" versus "genetic variation" above) and you don't cite your sources (which you have, unless you expect me to believe that you thought of co-evolution all by your lonesome). You also seem to use an odd definition of co-evolution; the correct one is "coevolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another"
(http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/27.Coevolution.HTML)

But let's stay with your implicit (and unsourced) definition and see where this goes.

Here's an example:

"What is this about a "matrix" of the environment? The only universal physical feature of this "matrix" of the environment is the atmosphere. Otherwise there are different kinds of land and water, e.g., mountains, deserts, plains, forests, salt water, fresh water, and sea ice. My point is that these physical features of the environment constantly cover large areas and thus offer broad opportunities for evolutionary adaptation. In contrast, co-dependent traits in organisms initially cover only very small areas if they exist at all, and a co-dependent trait could be fatal or harmful in the absence of a corresponding co-dependent trait in another kind or organism, and even when not fatal or harmful in such absence would be of no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent in the other kinds of organisms."

Let's unpack that paragraph and see what we find. Notable sentence number 1 says:

"The only universal physical feature of this "matrix" of the environment is the atmosphere."

That will come as something of a surprise to ocean-dwelling organisms, e.g. the sulfur-eating bacteria that live next to deep-ocean volcanic vents. Right off the bat you've painted yourself into a corner by asserting that bit about the atmosphere.. with no supporting logic. But let's move on.

"Otherwise there are different kinds of land and water, e.g., mountains, deserts, plains, forests, salt water, fresh water, and sea ice."

Minor terminological quibble - "forests" are not a kind of land. They are ecosystems that exist within the environmental matrix of air, land, and (occasionally) water.

"My point is that these physical features of the environment constantly cover large areas and thus offer broad opportunities for evolutionary adaptation."

Problem #1 - No definitions of what constitutes "large areas".
Problem #2 - Use of word "constantly" is stupendously superfluous verbiage.
Problem #3 - "broad opportunities" is meaningless and without context.

Okay, now for the big kahuna:

"In contrast, co-dependent traits in organisms initially cover only very small areas if they exist at all, and a co-dependent trait could be fatal or harmful in the absence of a corresponding co-dependent trait in another kind or organism, and even when not fatal or harmful in such absence would be of no benefit in natural selection when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent in the other kinds of organisms."

For a paragraph/sentence with so many words, it's astounding how little usable information there is here. What you seem to be saying is that co-dependent traits are initially local rather than global, that a co-dependent trait (more precisely, one of a pair of co-dependent traits) may be fatal, harmful, or neutral ("of no benefit") in the absence of its paired trait in some other organism. You omitted the case in which pairing of preexisting traits confers a reproductive advantage and the co-evolution develops over time (evolves).

The idea that they're initially local is a working assumption that may or may not be correct. The initial pairing of traits may be local, but the *possession* of those traits may, in fact, be global. None of that has made its way into anything you've written (that I have found).

You also seem to assume that paired traits that would be disadvantageous in one environmental matrix would be disadvantageous in all environmental matrices; it would be nice if you stated that explicitly so we don't have to wonder.

You *also* seem to make the creationist mistake of thinking that traits are always all-or-nothing affairs when there is variation among members within a given species. They aren't.

Finally, shot through your writings is the implication that co-dependent traits always evolve into some kind of permanent symbiosis, as if (to use your example) flowers might never get pollinated if it weren't for bees, or that bees would starve if flowers weren't brightly colored. It's hard to tell whether you really believe this or you think you're being cagey, but it's there.

Once again, you didn't get banned because your ideas are persuasive; they aren't. You got banned because you were (and are) insistently throwing out poorly reasoned and incoherently written blather, and claiming a victory ("they can't refute me!") when all you'd done was annoy people who didn't want to take the time to unpack your prose and show you what's wrong with it.

You still don't seem to understand what you're talking about. You don't write like you've read the literature; you certainly don't cite any of your sources. You assume things that you shouldn't, and you seem to draw conclusions from your assumptions instead of grounding them in that same literature. If you want to show that evolutionary theory can't explain co-evolution, you have to do more than just set up a messy straw man and exult. You have to find papers (in refereed journals, preferably) in which evolutionary scientists have put forth such explanations, and then demonstrate how and why those explanations don't hold water. *Then* you might have something worth listening to. What you're written so far.. not so much.

[Larry Fafarman]

--"The land, air, and water are the matrix of the environment rather than "features" because they are the medium in which organisms move, eat, interact, and reproduce. Typically a "feature" is some measurable quality of some other entity (color, size, number of heads, etc.); it isn't an entity unto itself. "--

"Feature" is the word I wanted -- it means a prominent part or characteristic. Sheeeesh.

--"As to there being no evolutionary change without mutation, wrong as stated. If you meant "there is no evolution without genetic variation", that's a different story."--

OK, I should have said "genetic variation." But random mutation is considered to be the main driver of evolution -- it is often said that evolution consists of "RM plus NS" -- the NS being natural selection.

--"Your ideas are hard to refute because they're amateurish, incoherent and badly presented."--

You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. My ideas are very clearly presented. It is the Darwinists whose ideas are badly presented -- for example, they often vaguely describe co-evolution as "mutual evolutionary pressure."

--"You don't use terminology correctly "--

Wrong -- I use terminology correctly.

--"you make bad assumptions and then don't correct them "--

I don't usually make bad assumptions and I correct bad assumptions when they are shown to be wrong.

--"and you don't cite your sources "--

My blog cites several sources about co-evolution.

--"(which you have, unless you expect me to believe that you thought of co-evolution all by your lonesome). "--

That is what you Darwinists call "an argument from incredulity."

--"You also seem to use an odd definition of co-evolution; the correct one is "coevolution is a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another"--

I was only describing one kind of co-evolution -- the co-evolution of mutualism, i.e., the evolution of the co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms. Sometimes co-evolution is defined as only mutualism and sometimes the definition of co-evolution is extended to include predator-prey relationships, parasite-host relationships, commensalism, amensalism, etc..

--"That will come as something of a surprise to ocean-dwelling organisms, e.g. the sulfur-eating bacteria that live next to deep-ocean volcanic vents. Right off the bat you've painted yourself into a corner by asserting that bit about the atmosphere. "--

But the atmosphere is right above them. My point was that the atmosphere is the most widely distributed physical environmental feature -- it is not far away no matter where you are on the earth. As for the deep-ocean volcanic vents, they might not cover very large areas but at least they are constant, unlike some isolated co-dependent biological traits that may be fatal in the absence of corresponding co-dependent traits in other organisms.

--"Minor terminological quibble - "forests" are not a kind of land. "--

Sheesh -- forests are a kind of environment. And they are constant and cover large areas, thus offering broad opportunities for evolutionary adaptation.

--"Problem #1 - No definitions of what constitutes "large areas"."--

Sheeesh -- it was just a generalized term. The atmosphere and the oceans cover very large areas. Mountain ranges, plains, forests and deserts cover relatively large areas. All of these areas are large in comparison to the tiny area where a random mutation occurs.

--"Problem #2 - Use of word "constantly" is stupendously superfluous verbiage."--

"Constantly" means that these features are always there. You seem to have trouble with the meanings of simple everyday terms.

--"Problem #3 - "broad opportunities" is meaningless and without context."--

An example of "broad opportunities" is that a pig born with wings anywhere in the world at any time can always fly immediately because the atmosphere is constantly everywhere.


--"What you seem to be saying is that co-dependent traits are initially local rather than global, "--

If they are mutations, of course they are initially local rather than global.

--"You omitted the case in which pairing of preexisting traits confers a reproductive advantage and the co-evolution develops over time (evolves). "--

But the whole idea behind evolution is that the traits are not "preexisting" but evolve over time.

--"You *also* seem to make the creationist mistake of thinking that traits are always all-or-nothing affairs when there is variation among members within a given species. "--

They don't "always" have to be all-or-nothing affairs -- they only sometimes have to be all-or-nothing affairs. In buzz pollination, for example, the pollen adheres so strongly to the flower that it can only be shaken lose by the resonant vibrations of an insect's wingbeats -- the pollen is unlikely to be carried by the wind. That is an all-or-nothing affair.

As for variations among members within a given species, the variations in two different species would have to match up at the same time and place in order to provide a benefit in natural selection, and if the variations are rare, such a match-up would be very unlikely.

--"Finally, shot through your writings is the implication that co-dependent traits always evolve into some kind of permanent symbiosis, as if (to use your example) flowers might never get pollinated if it weren't for bees, or that bees would starve if flowers weren't brightly colored. "--

There is a species of orchid that can be pollinated by only one species of wasp.

--"You got banned because you were (and are) insistently throwing out poorly reasoned and incoherently written blather, and claiming a victory "--

Wrong. Lots of people present poor arguments and then claim a victory, but those arguments are kept as examples of the weakness of the opposition.

--"You don't write like you've read the literature; you certainly don't cite any of your sources."--

There is not much literature on the Internet about co-evolution, but I have read a lot of it. And I do cite sources in my blog articles about co-evolution. As I said, the literature on co-evolution is hard to refute because it describes co-evolution in vague terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure."

[Chris W]

Larry:

No, your ideas are not clearly presented. You don't take the time to properly define your terms, and you don't take the time to fully explore the range of possibilities, viz:

"They don't "always" have to be all-or-nothing affairs -- they only sometimes have to be all-or-nothing affairs. In buzz pollination, for example, the pollen adheres so strongly to the flower that it can only be shaken lose by the resonant vibrations of an insect's wingbeats -- the pollen is unlikely to be carried by the wind. That is an all-or-nothing affair.

As for variations among members within a given species, the variations in two different species would have to match up at the same time and place in order to provide a benefit in natural selection, and if the variations are rare, such a match-up would be very unlikely."

You *don't* use terminology correctly, having admitted (just a few sentences up) that you should have said "genetic variation" instead of "mutation". As to the coevolution literature using vague terms, all terms are vague if you don't know what they mean. Try Wikipedia for a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_pressure

If you had actually read the literature instead of creationist abstracts of it, you would have run across one or more definitions of evolutionary pressure. You would have even run across mathematical definitions in the (sizable) population genetics literature.

Your whole thesis seems to be that Darwinian evolution can't explain co-evolution, isn't it? If you could be shown a plausible way for this to happen would you admit you're wrong?

[Larry Fafarman]

--"You *don't* use terminology correctly, having admitted (just a few sentences up) that you should have said "genetic variation" instead of "mutation"."--

So I am not allowed to ever make a mistake, even if I admit it. As I said, random mutation is often considered to be one of the two main drivers of evolution, along with natural selection -- the abbreviation "RM + NS" is very common.

--"If you had actually read the literature instead of creationist abstracts of it, you would have run across one or more definitions of evolutionary pressure. "--

You are playing word games here. You are very pedantic. You think that if others don't use the correct high-falutin jargon that you think they should use, then their arguments have no validity.

"Evolutionary pressure" is not the right term for what I am describing. Wickedpedia says, "Any cause that reduces reproductive success in a proportion of a population potentially exerts Evolutionary pressure or selection pressure." But an organism's non-adaptation to land, water, air, or other organisms does not necessarily reduce the reproductive success of that organism. In some situations, the term "evolutionary opportunity" is more appropriate than "evolutionary pressure." I am saying that air, land in its different forms, and water in its different forms offer large opportunities for evolutionary adaptation because these physical features constantly cover large areas. In contrast, potentially beneficial mutations producing co-dependent traits may exist in only very small areas and/or for very brief periods of time (if the trait is fatal or very harmful in the absence of a corresponding trait in other organisms) and so may produce only very small opportunities for adaptation in other organisms.

--"Your whole thesis seems to be that Darwinian evolution can't explain co-evolution, isn't it? If you could be shown a plausible way for this to happen would you admit you're wrong? "--

Well, one of my mathematics professors once said that nothing can be proved by example because we can never run out of examples. LOL. However, enough good examples of how co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms could happen would be acceptable as a virtual proof of such co-evolution, assuming that there are no good counterexamples. Many of the examples of co-evolution are of kinds of interspecies relationships -- e.g., predator-prey relationships, parasite-host relationships -- to which my reasoning does not apply.

[Chris W]

Larry:

"..an organism's non-adaptation to land, water, air, or other organisms does not necessarily reduce the reproductive success of that organism"

This is pedantic *and* content-free. But there's more:

"In some situations, the term "evolutionary opportunity" is more appropriate than "evolutionary pressure." I am saying that air, land in its different forms, and water in its different forms offer large opportunities for evolutionary adaptation because these physical features constantly cover large areas."

Air, land, and water only incidentally affect evolutionary opportunity by providing the global ecological matrix and some basic resources for organisms to compete over. So you're once again left trying to prove things with general assertions. Let me help by asking a few questions:

1) How does air affect evolutionary opportunity, and how does it affect it differentially?

2) How does water (as a large "fixed physical feature") affect EO?

3) How does land affect EO?

As to not being allowed to make a mistake, we all make them. But if you've been posting this stuff for a while, you ought to have done the homework to use the right term in the right place. That wasn't a typo; it was a pretty significant error, because genetic variation is broader than just mutation by itself. (One thing I tried to get WordPress to post for you was an article detailing just how much of the genetic information we carry isn't actually expressed; mutations can hide in the unexpressed part of the genome and get exchanged with other species members during reproduction.)

Or at least do like they teach us to do in scientific writing - write, edit, write, edit, *then* publish.

So your reasoning only applies to specific kinds of interspecies relationships? How about defining those kinds of relationships for us?

[Larry Fafarman]

Well, Chris, previously you thought that my ideas about co-evolution were not even worth posting on the blog of the Florida Citizens for Science, but now you seem to have a lot of interest in those ideas.

--"..an organism's non-adaptation to land, water, air, or other organisms does not necessarily reduce the reproductive success of that organism"

This is pedantic *and* content-free. --

No, it is not pedantic and content-free. I am explaining why the term "evolutionary pressure" was not the appropriate term for what I was discussing. First you accuse me of not using the correct term, and now you condemn my efforts to explain why what you consider to be the correct term is not appropriate.

--"Air, land, and water only incidentally affect evolutionary opportunity by providing the global ecological matrix and some basic resources for organisms to compete over. "--

Air, land, and water have more than just incidental effects on evolutionary opportunity.

Organisms do not necessarily "compete" over air, land and water per se. For example, there is generally no competition for space in the air -- the air is mostly empty. Organisms may compete for the resources -- e.g., food resources -- that the air, land, and water are able to sustain.

--"1) How does air affect evolutionary opportunity, and how does it affect it differentially? "--

The ability to fly helps in escaping some predators (but increases exposure to some predators -- e.g., raptors; birds and bats that catch insects while flying), helps in finding food, and helps in migrating great distances.

--"2) How does water (as a large "fixed physical feature") affect EO?"--

A lot of mammals, birds, and reptiles have adapted to the water. Darwinists believe that cetaceans are descended from land animals.

--"3) How does land affect EO? "--

The first sea creatures to crawl onto land took advantage of this opportunity.

Hey, I thought that you were supposed to be the big expert here, and you are asking me kindergarten-level questions about biology.

--"That wasn't a typo; it was a pretty significant error, because genetic variation is broader than just mutation by itself. "--

It was not a significant error -- some Darwinists even claim that evolution is driven only by natural selection!

--"So your reasoning only applies to specific kinds of interspecies relationships? How about defining those kinds of relationships for us? "--

There are different kinds of interspecies relationships going under various names like mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, parasitism, and predator-prey relationships. Sometimes co-evolution is defined as just the evolution of mutualism, sometimes the definition is extended to include other kinds of interspecies relationships. In parasitism and predator-prey relationships, for example, a mutation or other genetic variation in the predator, prey, parasite, or host can produce an immediate benefit without a corresponding change in the other organism -- in fact, it is better for the first organism if there is no counteracting change in the other organism. However, in mutualism, changes in both organisms at the same time and place may be necessary to produce a benefit, and the coincidence of such changes may be very unlikely. For example, suppose a flower suddenly develops a new color or scent which has the potential of attracting pollinators. But if there are no pollinators in the area that can sense that new color or scent, then the new color or scent is of no advantage. Or consider "buzz" pollination, where the pollen requires a special use of an insect's wings to dislodge it -- see

http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=1625

Without the high degrees of specializations in both the flower and the pollinator, buzz pollination could not occur. What is the likelihood that these high degrees of specializations in both the flower and the pollinator appeared at the same place at the same time?

Also, there is a species of orchid that releases female-wasp pheromones that can attract the male wasp of only one species.

Further discussion is on my blog in posts under the post label "Non-ID criticisms of evolution." Here are the posts under that label:

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/search/label/Non-ID%20criticisms%20of%20evolution

[Drew Smith]

Larry wrote: "some Darwinists even claim that evolution is driven only by natural selection!"

And who would these "some Darwinists" be?

[Larry Fafarman]

--Larry wrote: "some Darwinists even claim that evolution is driven only by natural selection!"

And who would these "some Darwinists" be?--

Well, here is an article about Darwinism that talks only about natural selection --

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1705343/The-Evolution-of-Darwinism-The.html

I think that Darwinists often avoid discussion of genetic changes because some genetic changes appear to be very unlikely.

Anyway, I am very annoyed by the harping about my use of the term "random mutation" instead of "genetic variation." I corrected myself and then Chris W. threw it up to me twice again. And as I said, Darwinism is often abbreviated "RM + NS."

[Drew Smith]

Larry wrote: "some Darwinists even claim that evolution is driven only by natural selection!"

I responded: "And who would these 'some Darwinists' be?"

Larry wrote: "Well, here is an article about Darwinism that talks only about natural selection"

You didn't answer my question. I asked you *who*. I asked you to identify the "some Darwinists" to which you referred.

The article you linked to is merely a book review for a book by Gould. There is no quote provided in the article from any scientist claiming that evolution is driven only by natural selection. So the article doesn't support your claim.

[Larry Fafarman]

--"The article you linked to is merely a book review for a book by Gould. There is no quote provided in the article from any scientist claiming that evolution is driven only by natural selection. "--

Well, the book review says, "Popular perception notwithstanding, the theory of natural selection was accepted by every serious evolutionist long before Darwin . . . .Darwin's innovation, which may appear small but is in fact immense, lay in his claim that natural selection is the only cause of evolution." It is not a direct quote of Darwin, and maybe the author of the book review was misinformed or was correctly informed but just did not say things the right way. Anyway, the point that I really want to get across is that IMO Darwinists would rather talk about natural selection than genetic changes because some genetic changes are very unlikely.

[Drew Smith]

Larry wrote: "IMO Darwinists would rather talk about natural selection than genetic changes because some genetic changes are very unlikely."

So is it your claim that a review of the peer-reviewed research literature related to biological evolution would fail to discover any significant number of papers that discuss genetic changes?

[Larry Fafarman]

--"So is it your claim that a review of the peer-reviewed research literature related to biological evolution would fail to discover any significant number of papers that discuss genetic changes? "--

No, I didn't say that -- you are putting words in my mouth. I was just stating a possible reason for my general impression that Darwinists would rather talk about natural selection than talk about genetic changes.

[Drew Smith]

Larry wrote: "IMO Darwinists would rather talk about natural selection than genetic changes because some genetic changes are very unlikely."

I responded: "So is it your claim that a review of the peer-reviewed research literature related to biological evolution would fail to discover any significant number of papers that discuss genetic changes?"

Larry responded: "No, I didn't say that -- you are putting words in my mouth."

How am I putting words in your mouth? I was asking you a question to find out what you *were* saying, not making a statement as to what you were saying.

Larry responded: "I was just stating a possible reason for my general impression that Darwinists would rather talk about natural selection than talk about genetic changes."

And I'm attempting to discover a way for you to justify your "general impression" with actual evidence. Do you have any to offer? Unless you can restate your "general impression" as a supportable claim, your "general impression" is meaningless.

[Larry Fafarman]

--Drew wrote, "How am I putting words in your mouth? I was asking you a question to find out what you *were* saying, not making a statement as to what you were saying. "--

Your question was much more extreme than anything that my statement suggested.

--"And I'm attempting to discover a way for you to justify your "general impression" with actual evidence. Do you have any to offer? "--

I gave the book review as evidence.

It is just my opinion that Darwinists feel more comfortable talking about natural selection than talking about genetic changes because some genetic changes are very unlikely. I can't find everything that helped give me that opinion, and that opinion is supported by logic anyway. It's just my opinion and I am entitled to it.

[Drew Smith]

Drew wrote "How am I putting words in your mouth? I was asking you a question to find out what you *were* saying, not making a statement as to what you were saying."

Larry responded: "Your question was much more extreme than anything that my statement suggested."

There was nothing the least bit "extreme" about my question. Instead, my question was *specific* (in an effort to get you to do more that make vague, unsupportable claims). Apparently, by my merely asking you the question, we all discovered that you were unwilling to commit to anything more specific than a vague, unsupportable claim.

***

I wrote: "And I'm attempting to discover a way for you to justify your "general impression" with actual evidence. Do you have any to offer?"

Larry responded: "I gave the book review as evidence."

And I responded by pointing out how a book review by a journalist that doesn't even provide any relevant quotes from scientists fails to provide evidence.

***

Larry responded: "It is just my opinion that Darwinists feel more comfortable talking about natural selection than talking about genetic changes..."

Your unsupported opinion, you mean.

***

Larry responded: "I can't find everything that helped give me that opinion"

So far, you can't seem to find *anything* that was actually said by *any* scientist that would support your claim.

***

Larry responded: "...that opinion is supported by logic anyway."

*What* logic?

***

Larry responded: "It's just my opinion and I am entitled to it."

Just your *meaningless* opinion, you mean. If you choose to offer opinions that have no evidence to support them, you're certainly entitled to do so, but don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.

[Chris W]

Larry:

"Without the high degrees of specializations in both the flower and the pollinator, buzz pollination could not occur. What is the likelihood that these high degrees of specializations in both the flower and the pollinator appeared at the same place at the same time?"

And right here is the crux of the problem, I think. You seem to assume that the "specializations" in the flower and the insect had to be there in full form instead of being partially there and co-developing due to a reproductive advantage gained by the interspecies cooperation. It smacks of the creationist "immutability of kinds".

"Also, there is a species of orchid that releases female-wasp pheromones that can attract the male wasp of only one species."

Pardon me for looking at your earlier posts, but you said this:

"Many of the examples of co-evolution are of kinds of interspecies relationships -- e.g., predator-prey relationships, parasite-host relationships -- to which my reasoning does not apply."

and according to the following web site, that's a parasite/hose relationship. The wasp doesn't get anything out of the deal but what amounts to a botanical lap-dance.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/139sex_deception/

[Larry Fafarman]

Drew, I am really fed up with your persistent needling.

--"There was nothing the least bit "extreme" about my question."--

You said, ". . . .would fail to discover any significant number of papers that discuss genetic changes?" That's extreme.

--"Larry responded: "It is just my opinion that Darwinists feel more comfortable talking about natural selection than talking about genetic changes..."

Your unsupported opinion, you mean. "--

You quote-mined me -- you lopped off my statement, "because some genetic changes are very unlikely." That is very dishonest of you.

Chris W. said,

--"You seem to assume that the "specializations" in the flower and the insect had to be there in full form instead of being partially there and co-developing due to a reproductive advantage gained by the interspecies cooperation. "--

The exclusive mutual specializations in "buzz" pollination are just so extreme that it is difficult to imagine them developing gradually. For example, I originally thought that in buzz pollination the pollen's adherence to the flower is just stronger than normal (in which case the increase in this adherence could occur gradually), but the pollen is actually contained inside a tube. Also, I thought that the insect's wing movements were like flying wingbeats but just more intense -- however, the insect vibrates its wings in a special way that might involve specialized muscles. One reference says,

"Pollen is produced in flowering plants in organs called anthers. In most plants, the pollen in the anther is accessible, but in certain plants (such as the eggplant) it's relatively inaccessible, because the anthers are tubular with an opening on only one end. . . . .

. . . There's the flight of the bee that's sort of a (SOUND OF BUZZING) but then when it lands on the flower and vibrates it, it goes (SOUND OF BUZZING, DIFFERENT PATTERN) that's the more intense sound is the buzzing of the bee. It's not flying. It's not moving its wings. The wings are pointed over its back, but it's moving those indirect flight muscles to vibrate, and thereby dislodge the pollen that's stuck in the anther area of the plant."

from --

http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=1625

Even assuming that the co-dependence in "buzz" pollination developed incrementally, the corresponding incremental changes in both kinds of organisms would have to exist at the same time and place, and as I pointed out, that is unlikely because the changes (mutations or genetic variations) occur in only very small areas and so corresponding changes in both organisms are not likely to coincide. A change in only one of the organisms provides no competitive advantage and so will not tend to spread rapidly.

--". . .according to the following web site, that's a parasite/hose relationship. The wasp doesn't get anything out of the deal but what amounts to a botanical lap-dance. "--

I did not present the orchid-wasp relationships as examples of mutualism. I presented them as an extreme example of exclusive and highly specialized dependence of one of the species -- in one of these relationships, the orchid releases female-wasp pheromones that attract the males of only one wasp species.

[Drew Smith]

Larry wrote: "Drew, I am really fed up with your persistent needling."

Translation: Larry was caught making a claim that he couldn't support with evidence.

***

I wrote: "There was nothing the least bit 'extreme' about my question."

Larry responded: "You said, '. . . .would fail to discover any significant number of papers that discuss genetic changes?' That's extreme."

What's "extreme" about it? If you're going to state an opinion about whether or not scientists prefer to discuss a particular topic, or prefer to avoid discussing a particular topic, then it stands to reason that you're going to have to review the research literature, since it's in the research literature where scientists discuss these issues. If we find that scientists do indeed discuss genetic change in their research papers, then your opinion becomes...just so much hot air.

***

Larry wrote: "It is just my opinion that Darwinists feel more comfortable talking about natural selection than talking about genetic changes..."

I responded: "Your unsupported opinion, you mean."

Larry responded: "You quote-mined me -- you lopped off my statement, 'because some genetic changes are very unlikely.' That is very dishonest of you."

It would be dishonest only if the remaining words changed in any way the meaning of your claim, but it doesn't. Your claim is in two parts: (1) that scientists "feel more comfortable talking about natural selection than talking about genetic changes", and (2) that the reason for this is "some genetic changes are very unlikely". But if (1) is unsupported, then (2) is irrelevant. In other words, you're ascribing a motivation to a fact not even in evidence. No fact, no need to even discuss the motivation. That's not "quote mining". That's pointing out that you can't even sustain your original claim (let alone your manufactured motivation for it).

Why don't you work on coming up with evidence for your claims first? If you can't, you won't have to waste time inventing non-existent motivations for non-existent facts.

[Chris W]

Larry:

"Even assuming that the co-dependence in "buzz" pollination developed incrementally, the corresponding incremental changes in both kinds of organisms would have to exist at the same time and place, and as I pointed out, that is unlikely because the changes (mutations or genetic variations) occur in only very small areas and so corresponding changes in both organisms are not likely to coincide. A change in only one of the organisms provides no competitive advantage and so will not tend to spread rapidly."

You haven't said anything about *how* small an area you're talking about here, or how many of those areas there may be embedded in a larger area. You haven't said anything about how far bees are willing to fly to find nectar, or about how many hives there are in a given area.

Computer simulation is a useful tool in theory-building; it helps you test your assumptions and get a sense of how close to accurate you are in your hypothesizing. If you wanted to test out your buzz pollination idea, you could build a computer model that simulates neo-Darwinian evolution (or multiple other flavors of evolutionary mechanism) and tests many different spatial and time scales. It won't "prove" anything, but the exercise of turning your boxes-and-arrows model into descriptive and rate equations will help you unearth assumptions that are hidden very deep. By making them explicit, you'll suffer less from pedants like me B-). You may also find out that you need to modify your conclusions a bit, which is a good thing. Better you find it out than someone else find it out in public at your expense. If you want, I will point you at some tutorials on evolutionary and ecological modeling.

Also, keep in mind that incremental changes accumulating into larger quantum changes happens over long time scales. You haven't said anything about how long that might take, and you haven't given us an expectation value of bee and flower meeting. Without doing some of those calculation, even on the back of an envelope, it's premature to talk about which things "are not likely". It's so much _argumentum ad handwavium_.

[Larry Fafarman]

Drew --

Sheeesh, just because I say that Darwinists prefer to discuss one subject does not mean that I expect to fail to find any significant number of papers on some other subject.

--"But if (1) is unsupported, then (2) is irrelevant."--

No, idiot, (2) is not irrelevant -- it helps support (1), regardless of whether (1) is otherwise supported or not. Why don't you let the other readers decide for themselves whether (2) supports (1), rather than you making that decision for them by censoring (2). And if Darwinist scientists write a lot of papers about genetic change, that does not mean that they do not prefer to discuss natural selection.

My opinion was reinforced by the book review, and the author of the review, even if not a scientist, wrote the review for a major magazine and should have known what he was talking about. And as I said, I can't remember or find everything that reinforced that opinion. All I can do now is be on the lookout for things that either support or do not support that opinion.

Look at all of the space you have wasted in this comment thread with your nitpicking quibbling. You have made me repeat myself unnecessarily.

You are missing the main action in this thread, which is the discussion of co-evolution.

[Chris W]

Larry:

"And as I said, I can't remember or find everything that reinforced that opinion. All I can do now is be on the lookout for things that either support or do not support that opinion."

That's why you take notes, and why good research has on-point bibliographies. As to his "nitpicking quibbling", I thought repeating yourself was your favorite occupation. ;-)

Still haven't got a job Chris? still spinning your wheels

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris W., may I remind you of what you said in your first two comments in this thread --

--"Larry:
Have you made any progress actually *understanding* coevolution instead of just memorizing and reciting the same example over and over again?

I can understand why you were banned at Florida Citizens for Science; you're like a big witless dog that keeps barking at imaginary squirrels all night long, or someone's car alarm that goes off at 3 am and won't turn off."--

-- and --

--"Larry:

I read your blog comment thread, and the answer to my first question above is "no, you haven't made any progress". You insist on assuming that mutation is the only starting point for evolutionary change, and you keep up with the oversimplifications (land, air, and water are not "features of the environment"; they are the matrix of the environment).

You *have* read up on more canned counterexamples and you can recite them, but you still don't seem to understand them. "--

Now you seem to be very interested in what I say about co-evolution. May I ask what caused you to change your mind?

--"You haven't said anything about *how* small an area you're talking about here, or how many of those areas there may be embedded in a larger area. "--

I have not been specific because the areas covered are highly variable and dependent on a number of factors. For example, how large an area is covered by the bees from a single hive? A square mile, maybe? I don't know -- I am not an apiarist. Other organisms range over wider areas. And how wide an area is covered by the offspring from a single plant? Not much. Also, organisms with particular genetic variations may exist for only brief periods of time, particularly if the genetic variation is fatal or harmful in the absence of corresponding co-dependent genetic variations in other organisms. But the atmosphere and the oceans cover millions of square miles. The different kinds of land (e.g., mountains, forests, plains, deserts, and swamps) and different kinds of water (salt water, fresh water, and ice) cover hundreds, thousands, or millions of square miles. And the air and the different forms of land and water are constantly there. So it is apparent that genetic variations in organisms are likely to offer far less opportunity for adaptation by other organisms than is offered by the widespread fixed physical features of the environment, i.e., air and the different forms of land and water.

--"Also, keep in mind that incremental changes accumulating into larger quantum changes happens over long time scales. You haven't said anything about how long that might take, and you haven't given us an expectation value of bee and flower meeting. "--

All I can say is that the chance of two major genetic variations of bees and flowers meeting is generally very small.

[Chris W]

Larry:

"Now you seem to be very interested in what I say about co-evolution. May I ask what caused you to change your mind?"

You stopped repeating your shorthand catchphrases _ad nauseam_ ("widespread fixed physical features of the environment"), and you started to sound like you might be willing to test your ideas out instead of just spouting them.

"I have not been specific because the areas covered are highly variable and dependent on a number of factors. For example, how large an area is covered by the bees from a single hive? A square mile, maybe? I don't know -- I am not an apiarist. Other organisms range over wider areas. And how wide an area is covered by the offspring from a single plant?"

But to make the kinds of assertions you make, you *need* to be more specific. And you also need to take into account the possibility that color or nectar composition can be part of the normal variation of a flowering plant and that you should be thinking about thousands or millions of exemplars of that species, not just a single one.

"Also, organisms with particular genetic variations may exist for only brief periods of time, particularly if the genetic variation is fatal or harmful in the absence of corresponding co-dependent genetic variations in other organisms."

Regarding buzz pollination, you don't seem to be considering something you agreed to earlier - that the flowering plant didn't start out unable to wind-pollinate effectively but evolved that way once the much more efficient bees came on the scene.

Then comes this:

"So it is apparent that genetic variations in organisms are likely to offer far less opportunity for adaptation by other organisms than is offered by the widespread fixed physical features of the environment, i.e., air and the different forms of land and water."

and you come right back to your assertions that you then spin into a mention (not a discussion, just a mention) of likelihood. It's not a taboo topic, but it is a precise one. If you're going to talk about it, you ought to define your terms for the audience here.

I'm wondering if you're familiar with exactly what "evolutionary opportunity" is and how it's measured. It sounds like you aren't. If you're just blowing off with terms you've read about but don't understand, we need to correct that.

[Larry Fafarman]

--"Now you seem to be very interested in what I say about co-evolution. May I ask what caused you to change your mind?"

You stopped repeating your shorthand catchphrases _ad nauseam_ ("widespread fixed physical features of the environment"), and you started to sound like you might be willing to test your ideas out instead of just spouting them."--

Chris W.,

Those were your reasons for the nasty things you said? And maybe you think those reasons were fair justifications for Florida Citizens for Science's kicking me off the FCS blog? "Widespread" and "fixed" are appropriate terms -- those physical features are "widespread" because they cover very large areas and they are "fixed" because they are constant or last for very long periods of time.

--"Regarding buzz pollination, you don't seem to be considering something you agreed to earlier -- that the flowering plant didn't start out unable to wind-pollinate effectively but evolved that way once the much more efficient bees came on the scene."--

My point is that in buzz pollination, the changes in the insects and the flowers were not just changes of degree but were changes of kind. I said in a previous comment,

--"The exclusive mutual specializations in "buzz" pollination are just so extreme that it is difficult to imagine them developing gradually. For example, I originally thought that in buzz pollination the pollen's adherence to the flower is just stronger than normal (in which case the increase in this adherence could occur gradually), but the pollen is actually contained inside a tube. Also, I thought that the insect's wing movements were like flying wingbeats but just more intense -- however, the insect vibrates its wings in a special way that might involve specialized muscles."--

-- from my above comment of April 28, 2008 at 08:36 PM

Also, as I said, even when the changes are gradual, corresponding gradual changes must exist in both organisms at the same time and place to produce benefits.

Believe it or not, I actually used the scientific method. First I created my "theory" of co-evolution (not really a theory but just a criticism of the theory of evolution). Then I theorized that co-evolution would be much more difficult in interspecies relationships where (1) there is mutualism as opposed to other kinds of interspecies relationships; (2) the required changes in both organisms are of kind and not just degree; and (3) the traits are totally dependent (i.e., fatal or very harmful in the absence of the corresponding trait in the other organism) in both or at least one of the organisms. I then searched for such interspecies relationships and I think that I found a fairly good example in buzz pollination.

As for computer simulations of evolution, they may sometimes be useful but I don't have much faith in them because of the difficulty of creating a realistic computer model and because so much of the input is highly variable and indeterminable. And I think that a computer simulation of co-evolution would mostly produce the same conclusions as can be obtained by reasoning. Reasoning -- or philosophizing -- may seem unscientific but a lot of science is done in that way -- for example, I think that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is probably based on philosophizing.

--"I'm wondering if you're familiar with exactly what "evolutionary opportunity" is and how it's measured. It sounds like you aren't."--

What is wrong with my use of the term?

[Chris W]

Larry:

"Believe it or not, I actually used the scientific method. First I created my "theory" of co-evolution (not really a theory but just a criticism of the theory of evolution). Then I theorized that co-evolution would be much more difficult in interspecies relationships where (1) there is mutualism as opposed to other kinds of interspecies relationships; (2) the required changes in both organisms are of kind and not just degree; and (3) the traits are totally dependent (i.e., fatal or very harmful in the absence of the corresponding trait in the other organism) in both or at least one of the organisms. I then searched for such interspecies relationships and I think that I found a fairly good example in buzz pollination."

But nowhere did we see you support the idea that the characteristics of bees and flowers in buzz pollination *were* of type and not degree, and you appear to dismiss the possibility that changes of degree can culminate in changes of type (see evolution of the eye to see what I mean). So your #2 isn't supported by anything you've said publicly. You'd better go back and support your second assumption, or look for another example.

As to the "nasty" things I said, yeesh. If you think that was nasty, you've led a sheltered life. As for getting banned from FLCS, you kept repeating your blurb and repeating your blurb without really explaining it (that I could see). That gets annoying very quickly. When you were asked to elaborate, you kept repeating your blurb as if you thought all the information anyone could ever need to see how correct you were was contained in it. There is no quicker way to get a glowing red "Bozo" painted across your avatar than that. Creationists do things like that to push peoples' buttons or to "strike a blow for Jesus" and they don't really care if it makes any sense. Until you decided to open up and expose your thought process, you were walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.

[Chris W]

Larry:

As for your use of the term "evolutionary opportunity", it's undefined. It's not clear from your writing if you know how it's computed (hint: it's in bioinformatics).

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris W. said,
--"But nowhere did we see you support the idea that the characteristics of bees and flowers in buzz pollination *were* of type and not degree,"--

I explained that twice already. Buzz pollination is not just a case of stronger adhesion of the pollen and stronger normal beating of the insect's wings -- the pollen is inaccessibly contained in a tube and the insect vibrates its wings in a special way that may require special muscles. Those are changes of type and not changes of degree.

--"and you appear to dismiss the possibility that changes of degree can culminate in changes of type "--

At some point there must be a sudden change from (1) the normal exposed attachment of pollen to (2) containing the pollen in tubes. That change is something that cannot be done gradually, unlike changes in the strength of the pollen's adhesion to the flower.

Also, as I said, even gradual co-dependent changes have to exist in both organisms at the same time and the same place in order to produce a benefit.

--"As to the "nasty" things I said, yeesh. If you think that was nasty, you've led a sheltered life. "--

I have not led a sheltered life. Nasty is nasty.

--"As for getting banned from FLCS, you kept repeating your blurb and repeating your blurb without really explaining it"--

It is not my fault when I am forced to repeat myself because other commenters ignore my previous comments, as you have done here. I sometimes feel like I am trying to spoonfeed an uncooperative baby who keeps striking the spoon and spattering the food and making a mess.

--"As for your use of the term "evolutionary opportunity", it's undefined. It's not clear from your writing if you know how it's computed (hint: it's in bioinformatics)."--

I only used the term "evolutionary opportunity" in an informal way. I meant an opportunity for evolutionary adaptation. "Evolutionary opportunity" does not require adaptation whereas "evolutionary pressure" may require adaptation. If "evolutionary opportunity" has a special technical meaning in bioinformatics, I am not aware of that meaning.

[Voice in the Urbanness]

Well Chris, you have by now learned what others have already learned. Trying to argue logically with Larry is like trying to catch a greased pig.

He doesn't understand anything that is explained to him and often makes his own definitions of common words on the fly. After being logically beaten into the ground, he will claim victory.

[Chris W]

Larry:

You can't use terms in an informal way when you're arguing scientific theories. I'm surprised that you didn't already know that.

You then said

"That change is something that cannot be done gradually, unlike changes in the strength of the pollen's adhesion to the flower. "

You might look at some references that talk about how pollen tubes in flowers *have* grown and evolved.

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/FPAS/bcs/bl14apl/flow1.htm

and

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:XEc_Fq0fNAAJ:www.systbot.unizh.ch/institut/personen/matthews_media_11/164800_web.pdf+evolution+of+pollen+tube+in+flowers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us

are good places to start.

For the record, adaptation doesn't work only in response to specific environmental features. Within a population you have genetic variation that produces variations in phenotypic expression (differences in height, skin color, body proportions, and so on) that do or don't confer a reproductive advantage whose size is (very) roughly proportional to the difference in phenotypic effectiveness (a function of how well each instance of said phenotype captures environmental resources or protects against environmental hazards). It isn't as if a buzzing insect shows up one day and flowers start generating fully-formed pollen tubes the next. As a counter-case for a Darwinian explanation, that's a really blatant straw man.

[Chris W]

Larry:

Just to anticipate and clarify, the above text means that the presence of an environmental feature isn't the stimulus that elicits a genetic response. That assumption underlies a lot of the creationist criticism of evolutionary theory. It's the way evolutionary change is often (wrongly) portrayed in the media, and since lots of creationists don't really dig deep enough to understand the mechanics of natural selection it's an easy enough mistake to make.