Evolution or Adaptation?

First, an observation. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. It is not a religious dogma; it is not a political dogma; it is a theory, and theories deal in probabilities, not truths.

When you use a term such as "evolutionist," you have already tipped your hand, and whether or not true or intended, you have labelled yourself as one of the religious opponents of the teaching to the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a term to describe the result, adaptation is a term which describes the mechanism.

Ok but evolution must also describe the mechanism. If it is just a term to descibe the result, what happens from the start to the result? What then fills in the gap?

Why would you assert that evolution must also describe the mechanism? A theory of evolution does describe the mechanism, and that description is natural selection through adaptation. What happens is that a particular characteristic of members of a species allows them to exploit a particular environment, usually a food source, as was the case with Darwin's finches. That ability gives the individuals possessing this adapative ability an improved breeding oppotunity, and therefore, "selects" for that trait in the species. There is no gap.

When Darwin visited the Galopagos while on a voyage in HMS Beagle, he noted that finches on different islands were nearly identical, with the exception of their beaks. In each case which he observed, the unique beak of the finches on a particular island allowed them to efficiently exploit a particular food source which was itself unique to that island. This was one of the important observations which lead to his development of a theory of natural selection.

Alfred Russell Wallace had spent years collecting samples of birds in the Amazon basin. He did this to earn a living, the birds (killed and mounted by taxidermy) were a saleable commodity. But he also did it to allow himself to pursue his own researches into species differentiation. He was a poor Welsh boy who had used that method to pay for his education. Darwin came from a well-to-do home, and was educated for the ministry at his father's expense. There is correspondence of Darwin to his father from some months before he got the opportunity to sail with Beagle, in which he discusses his desire to get a parish, and minister to its members. But because his father had influence, he was able to sail with Beagle instead, and in the accidentally occuring laboratory like atmosphere of the Galopagos Islands in the Pacific west of Peru, he found mountains of evidence of selective adaptation leading to the evolution of species. But having been trained in theology as well as science (the two areas were not yet enemies), he knew the likely response to publishing his findings and the conclusions he had drawn, so he sat on the material--for an entire generation.

During that time, Wallace was making a very good living, and had finally been able to choose the commissions he would accept. He had gone to the islands of the Netherlands East Indies (modern day Indonesia), and knowing of his interest in the subject, had written to Darwin to explain a theory of natural selection which he, Wallace, had derived from his own observations. I might point out to you at this point that two separate individuals, working with different samples in different locations who reach the same conclusion have provided a crucial element for the legitimacy of a theory--replicability.

Darwin knew he could no longer keep a lid on it, so he prepared his manuscripts and published The Origin of the Species. He belatedly gave credit to Wallace for his own observations and contributions.

It was, of course, at this point that the religiously intolerant and close-minded legions of fanatics began the assault on a theory of evolution which has continued to the present day.

Members of a species have a particular trait which has been transmitted to them genetically. In any case in which that trait will enable them to better exploit their environment, their opportunity to reproduce and pass on the genetic trait is enhanced. That is described as adaptation. When sufficient time has passed for the adapted members of the species to have replaced the orginal members of the species, or to exploit a different environment than that in which the original species had thrived, that species is said to have evolved. Evolution is the result, adaptation is the mechanism.

It is evolution. Whether individual a and individual b belong to different species, as opposed to variants of the same species, is basically an arbitrary matter of human nomenclature. It makes no difference to whether the changes that happened in the line of ancestors that connects a with b are evolution or not. They are in both cases.

I love threads about Evolution!!! This is just what we need. Each thread seems to be uniquely different. People express different opinions and there are always new ideas and arguments expressed.

At the end of these threads, people seem to all reach agreement and it is amazing what everyone learns.

Ok go back at it. I just want to say thanks for contributing to the wealth of interesting discussion brought about by the internet.

I would like to know what exactly it is about evolution that is so threatening? Few things evoke such a reaction from people as explaining how the external environment changes genetic frequencies in nature. Why? I don't get it. {Trying to be geniune}

ebrown: the same could be said for all of the debates out here, sadly. Still, I am here.

The religiously fanatical insist up on an acceptance of the literal word of dogma--in the case of fanatical christians, that means that every word of the bible must be accepted as literal truth. Insofar as the process of evolution requires thousands of years more than the time table allotted for all of history in the bible, you instantly have a contradiction of sacred text. Furthermore, the strict interpretationist is offended in that their view is that god created all creatures in the world as they are now, and not only are no changes evident to such a mind, the notion that god's perfect handiwork could and does change is nothing short of blasphemous.

Darwin was educated for the ministry, he foresaw the reaction. He only published The Origin of the Species because Wallace's correspondence made it clear that he (Wallace) was about to announce his discovery to the world. Darwin's ego would not let him take a back seat to Wallace so he published. A theory of evolution completely undermines the principle of "revealed truth" in scripture, and that is the source of the frantic and hateful response of so many of the religious to it.

Setanta, I would respectfully disagree with you on just one minor point: evolution is not a theory. Evolution is an observable scientific fact. When we speak of 'evolutionary theory,' we are speaking only of the mechanism(s) of adaptations, which is not yet well understood. There are a number of evolutionary 'theories' -- Darwin's (now mostly discredited), Lamarck's etc. etc. There's a semantic confusion in most people's minds about whether using the expression 'ecolutionary theory' somehow discredits the fact of evolution.

I have no problem with that. I lean upon the theoretical aspect because the religiously fanatical equate what they falsely describe as "evolutionism" with the stiff-necked, absolute truth they claim is contained in the "revealed truth" of scripture. I point out to them that scientific theory deals with probalities and not the truth, to demonstrate to them that comparing the concept of "revealed truth" to scientific theory is apples to oranges.

... and quite understandably so, since he had spent 14 years after his "Voyage of the Beagle" (1845) checking and re-checking his theory. (This is much more diligence than I would expect from any biologist today, given our "publish or perish" environment.)


That's true -- I think it also explains why they have invented the urban legend of Darwin revoking his theory on his deathbed. In terms of science, such a confession would be no more significant than when Galilei revoked heliocentric astronomy. But it seems very important if you subscribe to a religious mentality, one that cherishes stories about repenting sinners.

This certainly is the source of the complete incomprehension of the religiously fanatical--they don't realize the divide they erect themselves. Those who believe in theoretical science consider theory to be a statement of probability, from which arises, as MA points out, fact which is verifiable based upon its replicability and is predictive nature. As the fanatic (whether religious, political or ideologue) considers their dogma to be revealed truth, they ascribe the same absolutism and dependence upon faith-based belief to those who consider theories such as that of evolution plausible, but for the reasons brought out in this thread.

In another thread, one of the participants stated that he had "faith" in the theory of evolution, while still possessed of spirituality. You can hardly communicate with someone like that, because the terms of understanding are not conmensurate.

Merry, it is both theory and fact. Facts and evidence support the theory as long as no evidence dismisses it.(thats how we prove a theory). The Creationists are busy trying to punch holes in the evidence so that they can undercut the theory.
Set, I dont mind being called an "evoluitionist" Its kinda funny but there is a grain of truth in the religious aspects. For example, when whale fossils were not abundant and we only had about 2 different end member fossils, wed look at the ear bones and maxillae to show that other "intermediate" fossils would be found to interlock these into an evolutionary clade. Well, until those fossils were found, we had a certain amount of "belief" that they would be found. The fact that they were found and that the story was one of scientific prediction, didnt lessen the fact that we were proceeding in a sense of expectation and belief See what I mean?

I posted this same thread on abuzz a few years ago and got some neat answers.

My own opinion is that Most evolution expression is a result of adaptation to new environmental conditions.Witness the fact thatafter mass extinctions due to environmental catastrophes, a new line of pinnacle species arose ,and the food chains were "shuffled about" quite nicely
However , there are micro adaptations that have no environmental causes , like the "red Queen" pattern or sympatric evolution wherein two diverging species from the same rootstock diverge while occupying the same niche. These become examples of increasing genetic diversity when evolution would normally display just the opposite.

FM, there is a vast difference between a speculative belief based upon previously vetted data, and a belief based on faith.

I think there's a crucial difference though: In the scenario you describe, biologists believed in the existence of fossils intermediate between whales and land-bound mammals because their existence seemed probable to them, given their experience that the theory of evolution was good at predicting such things. Christians, by contrast, believe in things like virgin birth, transsubstantiation, and Jesus walking on water, because they are improbable given our experience. In fact, in any context outside of religion, these articles of faith would be considered patent nonsense. Richard Dawkins, in an interesting article titled Viruses of the Mind, argues that the nonsense nature of the beliefs held by religions is exactly their point. Dawkin's article is worth reading for other reasons too, especially for its idea that religions are to human brains what viruses are to computers.

PS. If we can find an e-copy of Wallaces paper, I think itd be worthwhile reading because its short and (to me ) a cursory dabble at the subject and not the exhaustive treatise that Darwin compiled. The actual publication of both works were sort of "brokered" by Huxley since he was constantly urging Darwin to publish . I dont think that Darwins ego was a problem, in fact, if anything, I feel he suffered from a massive lack of self esteem. If you read his lifes stories by others, you see that almost everything was done for him and he was quite concerned that many things he proclaimed would be used against him and that his work would be sub par. He was deathly afraid of Archbishop"Soapy Sam" Wilberforce and Richard Owen, thats why Huxley was the great debator and not Darwin himself.
BACK TO WALLACE
Wallace, as written by Wendt first contacted Darwin in 1856 with some information that Wallace felt Darwin could use. Many of the urban myhs include a story that Darwin sat on his "theory" foralmost 20 years . Au contraire. Darwin had published papers and small volumes of his findings form the Galapogos and tierra del Fuego . His works were small but important steps toward his big work. He d turned his house "Down House" into a big genetics experimental station where, to his amazement, hed discovered that there was much "Implied diversity" in the varieties of life, be they earthworms or flowers. Its been said that Grgor Mendel read some of Darwins early papers and was so influenced.
Back to Wallace. Wallace wrote to Darwin and Darwin , in 1857 had a letter catch up with Wallace while Wallace was on Tenate. Darwin invited Wallace to present his theory in front of the Linnean society.
Wallaces paper "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type" was sent directly to Darwin, who, by adding some of his own data from the Beagle and some of his subsequent work, packaged up a manuscript and sent it to Charles Lyell for consideration. Lyell gave it to Joseph Hooker (the botanist), who had the papers prepared for publication and presentation at the Linnaen. It got a resounding accolade and ,since Darwin was reluctant to publish, the Linnaen members began pushing .HARD.
Huxley was chosen to broker a deal as to how the Wallace paper (with added oomph by including some of Darwins data) should be pubished and then Darwins own opus Grandii, would be published.After this deal brokering , Darwin moved out of Down House and to a farm on the Isle of Wight and wrote the manuscript for Origin... in 14 months of work.
The final title was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection:or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the STruggle for Life"
Guys like Huxley, Spenser, Sir John Herschel and, most importantly, the publisherRobert Chalmers , all saw this as the "string theory" of biology.
Wallace and Darwin had a later disagreement because (and this is where I fall off the Wallace fan club truck) Wallace was giving in to the Church's aedmonition about man being a special case in nature. Wallace refuted the full descent with modifications concept by excluding man. He then began dabbling in Spiritualism and pretty much gave up(to me) his shot at greatness. There was talk that Wallace just became a loon and his many invitations to speak were just blown off as he practiced his seances.
His early ideas were seminal and paralleled Darwins own, but Darwin went so much further and Wallace made a right turn off the evolution path that he was almost forgotten .I picture Wallace more as the Doc Ricketts of his day and not a great contributor to one of the gtreatest (if not the greatest) idea of the millenium

Yes, i certainly concede that without Huxley, Darwin's Bulldog, not much would have been gotten from the old boy.

Thanks for the background, FM. I haven't the least doubt that this sort of detail never reaches the ears or eyes of most "anti-evolutionists."

set and Thomas. I believe that you are both right , but observe it from my perch. Im often in public presentations among Creationists . I usually roll out the masses of data and evidence that fossil records have begun to show. Many of these findings are quite recent and when one clade goes away for the cReationists, they usually are there pulling up another. I carefully select my words that say
"We have every reason to suspect that, with future explorations in the later sed horizons, we shall find additional evidence of intermediate fossils"

Thats like covering everything with honey and letting out the bears. I cannot avoid presenting end member evidence with a expectation based on reasonable scientific certainty, that intermediates wil be found (always have). But the Creationists have that argument canned. We, as scientists are foisting a cruel "con" on the schoolboards. We take end members that , according to the Creationists have no realtionship and expect us to believe our crap. The argument about whales was a good one and archeopteryx . and unrelated sedimentary tricks like "polystrate fossils" were all fair game.

So, presented to an audience of open minded individuals, the use of belief is acknowledging that "within a good degree of scientific certainty" an event will occur or a finding will be made.
If you read many of these evo threads on a2k, youll see that, often, on a single point of scientific discovery, the entire rational concept or evidentiary data is blown
off and a Creationist will only highlight a single line taken totally out of context and then go blowing off big time about how we, as scientists, fail to present truth. Its a trick that Im only learning to recognize and deal with as I get more time in the debates. Most of the school board presentations are not about science, theyre about debate skills and entertainment.

and money . . .