Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Dawkins explains evolution

Richard Dawkins has an excellent summary of the idea of evolution in this week's New Scientist, in an article titled "The world's ten biggest ideas". Here it is—it's a very clear, short, six paragraph explanation of a big idea, fewer than 600 words. Now if only everyone could just understand this:

The world is divided into things that look designed (like birds and airliners) and things that don't (rocks and mountains). Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed (submarines and tin openers) and those that aren't (sharks and hedgehogs). The diagnostic of things that look (or are) designed is that their parts are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction. They do something well: for instance, fly.

Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realise that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.

Every living creature has ancestors, but only a fraction have descendants. All inherit the genes of an unbroken sequence of successful ancestors, none of whom died young and none of whom failed to reproduce. Genes that program embryos to develop into adults who can successfully reproduce automatically survive in the gene pool, at the expense of genes that fail. This is natural selection at the gene level, and we notice its consequences at the organism level. There has to be an ultimate source of new genetic variation, and it is mutation. Copies of newly mutated genes are reshuffled through the gene pool by sexual reproduction, and selection removes them from the pool in a way that is non-random.

What makes for success in the business of life varies from species to species. Some swim, some walk, some fly, some climb, some root themselves into the soil and tilt green solar panels toward the sun. All this diversity stems from successive branchings, starting from a single bacterium-like ancestor, which lived between 3 and 4 billion years ago. Each branching event is called a speciation: a breeding population splits into two, and they go their separately evolving ways. Among sexually reproducing species, speciation is said to have occurred when the two gene pools have separated so far that they can no longer interbreed. Speciation begins by accident. When separation has reached the stage where there is no interbreeding even without a geographical barrier, we have the origin of a new species.

Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.

The ten big ideas, if you're curious, are:

  1. The big bang
  2. Evolution
  3. Quantum mechanics
  4. The theory of everything
  5. Risk
  6. Chaos
  7. Relativity
  8. Climate change
  9. Tectonics
  10. Science

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2949/BwRcAn6E/

Comments:
#40510: — 09/18  at  10:23 AM
Dawkins' final paragraph seems slightly tendentious, though. Who says it *is* random?



#40511: — 09/18  at  10:25 AM
Who says it *is* random?


Intelligent Design Creationists always says that the theory of evolution says that evolution through natural selection is a random process. I would think that this is what Dembski is addressing,



#40514: charlie wagner — 09/18  at  11:10 AM
Richard Dawkins wrote:


<<Snip 600 words of total horsepookey.>>


Richard Dawkins is either a liar or he's brain dead.

He's far worse than any creationist.

Living organisms are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction.

Birds can fly as well as airplanes, if that is his criteria for identifying design.

He has not one shred of credible evidence that random mutations, filtered by natural selection can generate new structures, processes or adaptations that are anything more than trivial. He has no empirical evidence of any kind that a nexus exists between darwinian mechanisms and highly organized processes and structures. In short, like most darwinists, it's nothing more than a story he made up that sounds good.

Dawkins is correct about one thing: Chance cannot explain life. Unfortunately, neither can neo-darwinism.

I wrote about natural selection being non-random:

"Natural selection is not random in the sense that all offspring have an equal chance of living or dying. Those that are more fit will have a better chance than those that are less fit.
However, natural selection can only act on what is already present. It has no power to create or assemble structures, processes, adaptations or systems that are not already in existence. Thus the power to create the variation that natural selection acts upon lies solely with the random processes of mutation, duplication and drift.
Use your experience as an analogy. There are dozens of makes and models of cars. Buyers select those that best fit their needs and the more popular and well made models will survive better than those that are poorly built. Think about the Yugo. But no on would ever claim that cars emerge due to random, accidental processes or that intelligent input was not an absolute requirement.



#40515: — 09/18  at  11:16 AM
The entirety of Dembski's math is founded on random genetic mutation.

Nowhere in is "model" does he address common decent or selection.



#40517: — 09/18  at  11:26 AM
I wrote about natural selection being non-random


Charlie, what makes you think that we care about anything you have written on a subject? It might be correct, but given your lack of understanding of the basic scientific premisses, it's not something any of us are likely to take for given. Instead, we're better of reading something written by someone who actually understand the subject being debated.



#40518: — 09/18  at  11:30 AM
Living organisms are assembled in ways that are statistically improbable in a functional direction.

I don't understand what this means. I don't know what statistical measures you used to determine the probability of a "functional direction".

One of course would assume that selection would statistically TEND towards functionality. (why would selection filter out what works? ... or worse, provide no filter at all? - then it ain't selection)

also... I think you missed Dawkin's point. (More like you made what he said, fit what you are thinking). He is NOT equating design with "ability". I believe he is stating that just because planes fly, and planes are designed, that not everything that flies is designed. (the whole cow with four legs thing... remeber that one?)



#40519: logopetria — 09/18  at  11:38 AM
My only problem with this otherwise excellent summary by Dawkins is in the first paragraph - the concession to the 'common sense' notion that biological entities "look designed". It's a very common way of describing the situation, and a tempting habit, but I think it's misleadingly wrong. I'll try to explain why via an analogy.

We explain the old geocentric model of the universe by saying that "it looks as if the Sun goes around the Earth". But as soon as you ask the relevant contrast question this supposed 'explanation by appearances' collapses: What would it look like if the Sun didn't go around the Earth? A fixed planet and orbitting star gives the Earth-Sun system just the same appearance as a heliocentric model. The geocentric illusion therefore can't be explained by mere appearances.

The analogous question in biology, then, when someone says "We imagined there was a designer because animals look designed" is: What would it have looked like if the animals weren't designed? This supposed 'appearance of design' has no more power to explain our naive error, it seems to me, than the supposed 'appearance of geocentrism' does.



#40521: logopetria — 09/18  at  11:53 AM
MpM

I'm also concerned with this 'functional direction' business (which ties in with my previous comment, in a roundabout way). How exactly do we define the function(s) performed by an organism (or parts thereof)? How is the performance of functions distinguished from mere actions? If a bird's function is defined as just whatever the bird does, it seems like a redundant notion. But I've never seen an adequate criterion to separate which actions (or potential actions) make up a function, and which don't.



#40523: — 09/18  at  12:14 PM
CW: Use your experience as an analogy.

NO! You simply cannot do this, and claim your insight as science. In doing so, you restrict yourself to a set of assumptions you can no longer test. You have eliminated science from your thought process, and restricted yourself to inductinve reasoning a la Aristotle. As we all know, that leads to a mishmash of correct observation and total B.S.

Here's a test: A beam of particles is sent towards two slits, and produces and interference pattern. Foolish scientists claim that particles "act like waves". Use your experience, Chuck, particles can't act like waves! Stupid physicists. Quantum mechanics must be wrong, even though all physicists agree on it.

How about this. Try determining simultaneity between two events using a stationary observer and one moving very quickly. They seem to report different conclusions. Silly experimentalists, use your experience! Time is a one-way process, so your measuring instruments must be misleading you! Relativity must be incorrect. Experience proves it.

</sarcasm>

This kind of appeal is generally correct, except when it isn't, and allows no way to determine between those cases. Thus, it will never be an acceptable way to practice science.



#40524: tony g — 09/18  at  12:54 PM
the last paragraph is missing:

Occasionally things are "designed" but: function only at things for which they were not intended (the Patriot Act), do not function at all (Edsel), complicate the elegant undesign of non-designed things (silicone implants), or do not appear to have been designed at all (art, especially that sculpture by the library; fake halloween dog poo).



#40527: — 09/18  at  01:06 PM
Agree with logopetria - I wish he hadn't run off after the red herring that life "looks designed". It has never occurred to me, when looking at a bird or an elephant or an amoeba, to think "hey, that looks 'designed'". "Looks designed" is a reaction I've only started to encounter recently, in the writings of ID-ites.

That apart, a great simple precis, and a fine counter to the Birdnow Defense of "Don't blame me for getting it wrong, I'm just a layman, and laymen can't be expected to understand tricksy science stuff."



#40530: — 09/18  at  01:40 PM
He has not one shred of credible evidence that random mutations, filtered by natural selection can generate new structures, processes or adaptations that are anything more than trivial... natural selection can only act on what is already present.

Have you ever read anything about genetic algorithms? Apparently not. Here's one example of many:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14394
It's all done using the amazing power of random mutation and selection. If we were to take your argument seriously, we would conclude that genetic algorithms can's work because they "only act on what is already present".

The analogous question in biology, then, when someone says "We imagined there was a designer because animals look designed" is: What would it have looked like if the animals weren't designed?

You have to look at the deeper details of biology to see that animals are a product of "blind" evolution rather than a designer.

A couple of examples:

Jury-rigged design
Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

Sub-optimal structures (like the mammalian eye being less-well "designed" than the octopus eye).



#40532: — 09/18  at  02:17 PM
Charlie Wagner, I made the effort and read your site and the various materials there. My conclusion: sorry but you're a crackpot. I know that my saying this won't make you re-examine what you think but unless your stuff is satire - and it would be quite good as satire - then you don't understand what science is let alone what evolution is.

Your family looks very nice. Maybe you will some day accept that you, like many people (including me) can have irrational blind spots. Maybe it's a woman or a place or an idea. Frankly, one test of whether you're completely out of the zone is when you start calling major scientists names and quoting your own words which have not been published in any scientific journal. That's a sign your egoistic belief system has overruled your sense.



#40533: — 09/18  at  03:18 PM
Of "the 10 big ideas", shouldn't #10-science be #1? It established the other 9.



#40535: Les Lane — 09/18  at  03:37 PM
"Random" can mean many things. Mutation, like radioactive decay follows "probabilistic rules". Antibody generation is a simple example of mutation creating something useful. It's important to note the involvement of directed hypermutation (i.e. certain regions of the gene follow different "probabilistic rules".)



#40539: — 09/18  at  04:34 PM
Fed Up--
especially if you imagine Thomas Dolby saying it.



#40540: John Timmer — 09/18  at  05:33 PM
This is the second time i've seen Charlie Wagner show up in a thread to make a bunch of claims that he provides no evidence for. I wasted a few posts trying to point out some counter examples, but he lost interest and stopped responding. Apparently, whatever i said didn't register, since he's reappeared to post almost exactly the same thing as last time. Word of advice to others here: save your typing for something more useful than responding to him.



#40543: Mrs Tilton — 09/18  at  06:04 PM
See, this is why I really like Dawkins. There's quite a lot one might very justifiably hit him over the had for. Yet he can distil something enormously important and enormously beautiful and enormously complex into a minute and a half of plain English.

He and I disagree on whether there is a God. I hope that Dawkins would at least appreciate the irony that, if there is a God, few so effectively glorify Him as Dawkins does.



#40544: Mrs Tilton — 09/18  at  06:08 PM
Oh jayzis, feck, not paying attention there at all, I'm afraid...

a loud ARRRRR is to be understood at the start of my comment above; and you should read it as ending with a hearty 'avast ye!'

Thank you.



's avatar #40547: Virge — 09/18  at  06:26 PM
It be Septemb'rrrr 19th 'ere.

In each thread, Charlie argues a little until his lack o' evidence has left that scurvey dog flounderin'. I doubt he e'er visits any o' th' linked sites that provide easy, evidence-based refutations o' his ideas. And swab the deck! The ornery cuss just keeps comin' back, and each time he appears t' have forgotten past arguments.

Is he:
- Playin' devil's advocate fer th' sake o' an argument?
- Lackin' short term memory?
- Sufferin' a specific mental block or area o' blindness?
- Postin' here fer google-juice fer his site?
- Seekin' attention o' any kind, even negative?
- Tryin' t' impress an anti-evolutionist lass with his heroic struggle against th' forces o' evil science?
- Really a sophisticated chat-bot?
- Correct, but findin' reality still too stubborn t' submit itself t' his authority?

Curious pirates wanna know.



#40550: charlie wagner — 09/18  at  07:07 PM
Virge wrote:

"Curious pirates wanna know."

Well, it's only 4:00 O'clock in the afternoon here, so I guess I can forgo "pirate mode" until tomorrow.

I'm here for 2 reasons:

1. My own amusement and to entertain you'all.
2. More than 5000 people a day read this blog. What better way to get my views exposed to the masses? Someone out there might take note and pay attention. I may not be able to convince most of you but somewhere out there there might be one person thinking and wondering. I'm a farmer. I'm planting seeds.
I took the same attitude when I was teaching. You never reach everyone and the great majority of students either don't haer you, don't care or immediately forget what you say. But there's always that one.



's avatar #40552: Virge — 09/18  at  07:25 PM
So, Charlie's whorin' ignorance and his special inability t' learn from reasoned discussion.

Perhaps we should describe that scurvey dog as th' "salt o' th' earth"--based on what he be sowin'.



#40553: mynym — 09/18  at  07:43 PM
Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random.


Yet his mind is shifting between random and non-random as an answer. "Random" can be an appeal to ignorance about cause and effect, which tends to be less and less scientific.

Yet that is what he shifts back to:
Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop.

...cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.


Living complexity cannot come about by chance...but it did in little steps? He seems to want "chance" to be the answer, even as he knows it cannot be. So he begins again into another iteration of not by chance....but by chance.

Perhaps his mind is working as a parasite off of Life as the fundamental or vital/selecting force. He seems to be using such a notion in the background, a principle that Life will select to survive and beget Life. He's just shifting between Life (Which selects for more of itself in the struggle for survival, a natural enough selection.) and Chance as answers, mixed in with some handwaving about how making "chance steps" (Cause and effect which apparently trace to poof there it is by "chance"?) smaller can increase the number of chances for some sort of Ultimate Chance.

If the Watchmaker is blind then the systems it processes cannot be "guided" or "selected" by it. If some selective principle is guiding a process mixed in with chance then that principle is not therefore broken down to being "random" as well. (His not by chance...but yes, by little chances argument.) A guided process that is broken down into small steps that make use of chance (or trial and error) for learning is still a guided process accumulating knowledge, ultimately guided by whatever first principles are being processed through the system, perhaps a system that is making use of "chance" to learn.

The use of the word "chance" seems to be a weasel word to avoid dealing with cause and effect scientifically. The "random" mutation supposedly being selected by Nature but more likely being selected by Life in its struggles was caused by something, which was caused by something else, and so on.



#40554: — 09/18  at  07:49 PM
Mrs. Tilton, would you be so kind as to explain:

I hope that Dawkins would at least appreciate the irony that, if there is a God, few so effectively glorify Him as Dawkins does.


(Oh, and your post about spiders Dr. Myers linked to recently was just lovely - I've been feeding the Argiope aurantia living across my kitchen window beaucoup insects, and damn she's gettin' fat and happy and beautiful).



#40556: — 09/18  at  07:52 PM
Mynym, we are not interested in your unintelligible word salad. You've likened biologists, including the owner of this site by name, to Nazis. Go away, child.



Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: Teaching at a liberal arts college

Previous entry: Best review of a Dembski book ever

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college