Evolution vs. Creationism

To be fair, I was criticizing his use of the English language. 

We're not trying to criticize your English, we're trying to criticize your science and your degree of confidence in an over-simplified view of evolution.

Dean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Dean wrote: There is no conflict in the various methods, all are capable of driving evolution dependant on the relative stability of environment, population sizes, etc. and whichever one is dominant is probably determined by the stability of all those factors. For example in a stable environment of small populations genetic drift may well overshadow any advances governed by natural selection.   I don't see where either of us has said that there is no natural selection, or even implied that. I don't see either where I said there's no other force beside natural selection at work. But how could for example genetic drift be a driving force in evolution? "Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success,[2] the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success." As I see it - through layman eyes - genetic drift could not be a *driving* force like natural selection. It seems more like an element of chance to me. Of course elements of chance can also have great effects, but not in a guiding or driving manner. quoting the same reference, just a few paragraphs later: wiki wrote: Although both processes drive evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. This is because natural selection emblematizes the ecological interaction of a population, whereas drift is regarded as a sampling procedure across successive generations without regard to fitness pressures imposed by the environment. While natural selection is directioned, guiding evolution by impelling heritable adaptations to the environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.

It boils down to how you define the word "drive" now. To employ an aphorism: I don't think that genetic drift was in the driver's seat.


What I don't get about your teaming up with Negoba to prove that I haven't completely mastered the English language: How does that, in any way, pertain to the subject of "Evolution vs. Creationism"? I have already admitted on several occasions that I don't have a degree in biology.

As I mentioned earlier, genetic drift really is a form of natural selection if you define natural selection broadly enough. That is, the conditions of an individual life matched right with the environment.

Pretty much, but I think in the context it came off as more dismissive than inclusive.

To emphasize that, it would have been better to go "...the*driving* force..."

Just sayin.

Dean wrote: There is no conflict in the various methods, all are capable of driving evolution dependant on the relative stability of environment, population sizes, etc. and whichever one is dominant is probably determined by the stability of all those factors. For example in a stable environment of small populations genetic drift may well overshadow any advances governed by natural selection.   I don't see where either of us has said that there is no natural selection, or even implied that.

I don't see either where I said there's no other force beside natural selection at work.

But how could for example genetic drift be a driving force in evolution?

"Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success,^[2] the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success."

As I see it - through layman eyes - genetic drift could not be a *driving* force like natural selection. It seems more like an element of chance to me. Of course elements of chance can also have great effects, but not in a guiding or driving manner.

Edited by Dean - December 06 2009 at 15:11

^ I agree. I find the idea of evolution being driven by one single mechanism suspect given the evidence, though I doubt the equilibrium periods of punctuated equilibrium were that static - for example the shift from dinosaurs to mammalian dominance may have resulted from the KT event, but dinosaurs were both evolving and going extinct prior to that and it was that decline that hampered and ultimately prevented their recovery from the cataclysmic event..

Edited by Dean - December 06 2009 at 14:48

On that page I think this paragraph qualifies best for the question that I asked here:

Negoba wrote: Natural selection is one of many factors involved in speciation, but I doubt it is even in the top 3. Not that that matters except for the fact that it is only one many people (those that even bother to believe in the concepts) know about.   I also hate the term "evolution." There are some basic reasons why things build on themselves over time, but there becomes a breaking point where too much energy is required and the system become extremely precarious to changes in environmental conditions. For example, the degree of "evolution" that pushed toward enormous animals, probably fueled by a much greater biomass than we have now, eventually overstretched itself to the point that when the system conditions changed, it collapsed, It did not rebound after the last big cataclysm, and a new course of "evolution" started.   Again, evolution implies a linearity that does not infact exist. It also has been associated with a slow steady course that doesn't exist either.

Well, my answer is really short and concise: His view contradicts the scientific consensus today, and I can't possibly take it seriously. Natural selection is *the* driving force in evolution - that's what I'm convinced of. And I don't have to waste my time backing up my position - I can defer that to biologists like Dawkins or Coyne, who have earned their merits in this field.

BTW: What I really find arrogant on Negoba's part is to badmouth my position as not up to date and totally unscientific, while his position is the one that is conflicting with the current consensus. Don't take my word for that, but Dawkins', Coyne's, PZ Myers' and that of countless other biologists.