Dear Rene,

Thank you very much for your straight talk. I did go through Richard Dawkins But was not convinced. The others I have not gone through.

Could you please spell out what the evolution theory predicts for the future course of evolution of any of the currently available species like humans and monkeys, ants, bees, cockroaches and mosquitoes etc.?

Regards,

Rajat

One prediction of Darwinism is that all species are connected in a single phylogeny, viewable as a phylogenetic tree. Darwin considered this so important that the only illustration to ever appear in Origin of Species is a figure of a phylogenetic tree. When Darwin published his work, perhaps 100,000 species were known. Today, the number is something like 2,000,000 or more. And in 100% of the cases, Darwin's prediction has been corroborated - so, at least 1,900,000 tests of one of his fundamental predictions, with 100% corroboration. I think this makes Darwinism one of the most tested scientific theories in history and has stood the test of time.

Check out sex-allocation theory. It's a part of evolutionary theory that is now highly quantitative and model driven.

It roughly started with Ronald Fisher. Under his assumptions, the prediction was that the allocation of resources into the different sexes of the offspring should be equal. It largely proved true, but later models explored different assumptions under which these 'sex ratios' could also turn out male or female biased. These models by now deliver fine grained predictions that are constantly tested and refined and tested etc. Just as the scientific method is supposed to work.

From there, you can work yourself into behavioral ecology (sociobiology) and so on an so forth. The prediction that not all genetic elements will do something good for the organism within which they dwell ('selfish' or 'parasitic' DNA), for example, is a prediction you can only get from modern evolutionary theory.

Dear Daniel,

What you suggest as a verification of Darwin's theory is, at best, a post-facto justification and not a testable prediction.

Can you predict what will happen next via "natural selection", given our thorough and advanced scientific knowledge of all kinds of environments for all species, the next stage of evolution of even a single species on the basis of the phylogeny tree? Then this will surely be a real prediction of the theory. I allow you the freedom to choose that species about which you feel most confident.

Regards,

Rajat

This question may also be pertinent to this interesting debate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Natural_Selection#share

Thank you Emilio for pointing to the thread started by you. Wonderful and very thought-provoking indeed.

Please don't get disheartened if some biased people down-vote such original thought -provoking questions.

Regards

Rajat

As Daniel said, accordingly to evolutionary theory, all life on earth is linked through a chain of ancestry-descent, and evolutionary theory can predict that if a new species is to arise, it will be though modification of another(s) previously existing now: or by anagenetic change inside a lineage, or by cladogenetic splitting originating 2 or more species, or by merging of 2 or more species (hybridization, polyploidy, symbiogenesis, etc.). Of course, the origin of life entailed a transition from inorganic materia to organic (probably very simple) materia. But, if a complex unicellular organism (e.g. eukaryotic cell) or any multicellular organisms arise from inorganic materia directly, this would falsify evolutionary theory as we know it.

Evolution also predicts the idea of change in frequencies of inherited characters through generations, and based on that prediction, there are experiments corroborating evolution. You can see here Lynch long-term evolution experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

A static, fixist-like species, with no change whatsoever, would falsify evolutionary theory.

Moreover, those changes can be adaptive and is expected that when environmental (biotic or abiotic) variables changes, species will change non-randomly, adaptively, otherwise they will be extinct in a long run. Adaptation is also evidenced in Lynch’s works, on Grant's couple work with Darwin’s finches, and extinction by changes in climate is also well documented.

A falsifier to that proposition would be a plastic species that could, without any phylogenetic change, indefinitely adapts to any harsh environmental change and avoid extinction, without change though generations. Is important to observe that a change in behavior is a plastic response, but when the behavioral pattern is inherited socially, and responsible for change in frequencies of that behavior through generation, it is phylogenetic.

Adaptations are also expected to benefit the fitness of bearer, directly or indirectly (this will include group/kin-selection). Adaptations in a species that benefit exclusive the fitness of another species (note that this exclude by-products effects) is a potential falsifier for the adaptive theory of evolution.

These are few examples, and with a more robust search one can find more. Is necessary observe that modern evolutionary theory is more than just Darwin's theory, appreciate it’s growth, and the biological scientific advance since 1959.

Oh, and I almost forgot to comment the fallacy: "Could you please spell out what the evolution theory predicts for the future course of evolution of any of the currently available species like humans and monkeys, ants, bees, cockroaches and mosquitoes etc.? "

Demanding that one predicts the future of any specific species requires not scientific prediction of an evolutionary theory, but clairvoyance, so much as demanding that Germ Theory of Disease specifies what specif diseases will a particular individual organism will acquire during his life time, begining from today.

Thank you Daniel for your twin responses.

Do you think the laboratory tests on E-coli satisfy the criteria for "Natural selection"? Is it Natural selection or selective breeding ?

How about cockroaches which have remained in the same state of evolution through severe changes in environmental and climatic conditions ?

Can we not predict something like "Horses will grow horns in future " or that "the homo sapiens will develop hind eyes" for making them even fitter for their survival ?

These are just examples that come to my mind immediately and are not meant to tease you or any body. Please don't misunderstand me.

What I want to point out is that we should be able to pinpoint the most glaring weaknesses of a species that endanger its survival in a great way, so that the next great evolutionary adaptive change would see it develop the corresponding trait so that it becomes the fittest to survive.

Regards

Rajat

You're welcome Rajat,

Answering your new questions:

1- "Do you think the laboratory tests on E-coli satisfy the criteria for "Natural selection"? Is it Natural selection or selective breeding? "

Firstly, the dichotomy between "natural" and "artificial" selection in not really a qualitative one. Is not because we (an animal), that are the biotic element exerting selective pressure to another population, that it will change the logic of the process of adaptation. From the point of view of a bacteria strain, we, researchers, are environment that is changing. Adaptation will proceed. What is being judge is the capacity to respond to selective pressures, not the pressures itself. And in this point, is exactly like natural observation of evolution in the wild.

2- "How about cockroaches which have remained in the same state of evolution through severe changes in environmental and climatic conditions?”

Not quietly:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493-97.6.2067

This is a result of a fast-search, probably with time, one can find more evidence.

Is important that we have in mind that different organisms will have different levels of tolerance and plasticity, and is not by saying that a Blattodea observed for 10 years did not show evolutionary change, that it means that in 10.000 it will also not show (e.g. we know that Carboniferous or Permiam coackroachs were smaller).

3- "Can we not predict something like "Horses will grow horns in future " or that "the homo sapiens will develop hind eyes" for making them even fitter for their survival ?"

As I said earlier, no, we can't predict nothing of that, unless (being simplistic) we know every aspect of how (and if) environment will change (including all other species relations with the ones in question and all the abiotic factors), and even with that, we cannot assure that some changes will or will not appear in the genome and development of these species, that will give enough variation to selection to take place.

That best that could be done, and is something very speculative, is a probabilistic conjecture, given that some well know condition A, B, C that are happening today, will hypothetically continue to happen tomorrow, and no other variable will interfere on how those conditions affect that species' future evolution. I can't see much value on this endeavor.

My best,

Daniel

Thank you Daniel for your lucid and candid response. There is still a lot left to be understood in evolution. Hopefully, with more expertise we will one day be able to predict exactly what the future evolution of a species will be, may be by resorting to parallel computing in supercomputers, feeding in all environmental parameters and the genetic map or genomic map of the species as input data. The crucial issue then would be the nature of the interaction of the genome with the environment that will have to be put in so that only the fittest survive in the end.

Regards

Rajat

Dear all,

If we are unable to predict the future course of evolution of any species, I wonder if we could predict at least the species that are going to be extinct in near future as a result of natural selection. Tigers are nearing extinction for example. Many species have been identified as endangered ones by scientists. At least this we should be able to predict with some amount of certainty.

Regards

Rajat

You don't need to bother natural selection, in order predict that with a high amount of certainty. Or do you really think that the tiger is about to go extinct due to natural selection?

The cause is, as it were, human action. Here's a list of ten species on the brink of extinction by the Time magazine: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1888702_1863813,00.html

The role of natural selection and academia is negligible, when it comes to extinction. Often the alarm bell sounded by rangers, conservationists and activists for organizations like WWF.

And usually there is no academic research needed, in order to know what humans ought to do, in order to safe them! Don't catch/ kill/ hunt/ eat them. Don't destroy their habitats. Don't introduce alien species to their habitats etc. Pretty simple in theory.

To pretend that the jury is still out on the question of why these species go extinct plays into the hands of those with vested interests in exploiting these species/ habitats.

The diminution over time of the curing efficiency of the antibiotics is a prediction of natural selection.

Life on earth could not exist before earth and since it did not existed immediately after the forrmation of the earth then it had to evolved from chemistry. The theory of evolution of Darwin posited that all the current species now existing evolved from an single initial form of life. The analysis of the multiple life fossils , and the analysis of the genome is so far confirming the single descent model. We do not need to go in the future since we can investigat the past evolutionary record.

Dear Joachim,

It seems you are of the opinion that what other species do is natural and what humans do is not natural, unnatural or artificial. So then it means that up to the human stage everything is natural. But, once the human came, things like deforestation, loss of habitat, imbalance in biodiversity etc. etc started to happen and some species started to dwindle in numbers.

The question then is why at the human level things start becoming other than natural ? Is it an indication of something other than nature which starts manifesting only in the human being and not in other species that can alter the course of evolution of species in addition to natural selection ?

Regards

Rajat

What is LIFE, dear Louis ?

Is it the "living form" or something else which animates the " living form"? You see the living form may be there but there may not be life.

In Darwinian evolution, what evolved is the "living form" , not life. What he so painstakingly examined in his long excursions and voyages were the "living forms without life" and come to propose the theory of evolution and it was the evolution of " physical forms of living creatures" which can be differentiated from "life" proper.

We have to understand the queer phenomenon called "life" first, thereafter we can talk of its evolution. "What is life?" is the big question.

Regards

Rajat

Rajat,

The living form is a living form because it is animated and it is animated because the dynamic relation such a form allow with its umwelt. A living organism has form which permit certain mode of action which is its life. Darwin did not answer all the questions about life. He wanted to understand how species of life have evolved. My body allows me to do things and this doing is my life. I have difficulties imagining doing things without my body. I do agree that we have to understand ''what is life?`' (http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf) The theory of Darwin is an important piece of this puzzle.

I fully agree with you Louis on Darwin's seminal contribution to the understanding of evolution of various forms through which life has expressed itself, right up to the human stage. But the question is what is it that really evolved ? What evolved is not Life itself but the forms that life took to express itself through ? Why such an evolution of the physical form took place ? Darwin's answer is natural selection of random mutations leading to the survival of the fittest. And, Nature is the environment in which the species found itself. Something is missing here and that is inner nature of the species i.e. each individual member of every species to struggle for survival. The outer nature is able to select only because there is in the inner nature an urge to live. This urge to live is fundamental to all living creatures and this is missing in Darwin's scheme and is depriving us of much new insight in to the phenomenon of life.

Regards

Rajat

Rajat,

Your life is your doing. It is not your body, it is what you contribute and a good life should be celebrated become it become part of some many other lifes which will continue this building of life. I think that we are gradually merging towards a collective stellar form of life of this planet. There are probably billion of such stellar being in the visible portion of the universe. When we reach this stellar stage we will probably learn how integrated at the hyper stellar level of life up to the god/universe life level. We cannot say much at our very primitive level on that. Yes a lot is missing from the scientific viewpoint and it is our task to improve on that. I adopted Darwinism not as a framework but as just as a small part, a tiny part of the framework of life that remain to be drawned.

Dear Louis,

Here you have deviated from our discussion of life biologically. What one does is sociological aspects of life. We are trying to understand the biological connection of LIFE with the living forms through which it has evolved according to the theory of Darwin. But I agree with your expanded view of life and the fact of Darwinism being but a small part of the whole structure.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

I think you ask important questions. If one day you don't find the right answers, you might skip survival of the fittest mutant and turn to the old model of saltatory evolution of nonadaptive characters. It is reviewed in the introduction of the following article:

Article The telomeric sync model of speciation: Species-wide telomer...

Thank you very much Reinhard for your joining this discussion and for the wonderful reference. There is need to rethink on Darwinian evolution, which is beset with difficulties of various kinds including the one addressed by you. I am happy that so many people are there who recognize the problems with Darwin's theory.

It is unfortunate that most biologists think of Darwin's theory as if it were a religious doctrine not open to critical analysis. Your article addresses one of the core issues on evolution, where species undergo quantum speciation by sudden jumps.

A lot more surely needs to be uncovered in future.

Regards,

Rajat

Dear Rajat, I am sure you read about admixtures between Neandertals and modern humans about 80,000-40,000 years ago...the story is based on DNA comparisons. One of the testable predictions of neo-Darwinism would be that you should find Neandertal genes in modern humans, but also modern human genes in drafts of Neandertal genomes.

Guess what, they only found Neandertal genes in modern humans but no evidence of genetic sequences of modern humans in Neandertals. How is it possible that "superior" modern humans bred with Neandertals and their superior genes disappeared in the hybrid offspring? If the theory of survival of the fittest mutant (=modern synthesis) is true, you should find lots of "superior" genes of modern humans in Neandertal DNA after interbreeding!

Reinhard,

I am not an expert in this topic but maybe early modern humans accept more diversity in their tribes than their neandertals cousins.

Louis, yes you are right, that's possible. But if modern humans were "sooo" superior and Neandertals were inferior...as has been taught for decades...a multikulti society would have slowed down any "evolutionary progress"...right?

Reinhard,

Maybe some Neandertals girls were very attractive. This sexual attraction may be based on cues that are often effective at making the species better.

Louis, good point. However, Vernot et al. 2014 discovered over 15 Gb of introgressed Neandertal sequence in modern humans, but only 23 Mb of introgressed sequence per individual (on average). So it seems "every tribe" incorporated different Neandertal genes. How is it possible that 20% of the Neandertal genome turned out to be (evolutionary) beneficial for modern humans in certain situations, if the Neandertal genome was so "bad" that its carriers went extinct? The multiregional model with local Neandertals directly transforming into modern humans might better explain the extreme variation of inherited Neandertal sequences in modern human populations and the absence of any modern human genetic sequence in Neandertal DNA. That's a testable prediction... ;-)

Being expert of 15 minutes wikipedia reading I discovered that it is not clear that Neandertal might (controversy) be an homo sapiens sapiens. So maybe neandertal are superficially different physiologically and culturally and like many nations of the past, it disappeared by assimilation.

Dear Louis and Reinhard,

If one goes by physical appearance and structure only, I'm sure we should have some tribes very closely resembling Neandertals even now and I don't think anyone has checked upon such rare cases in respect of total genomic similarity.

Regards

Rajat

Genetic variation within modern human races has been found to be higher than between two individuals of different races. So the question remains what the genetic sequence can tell us about phenotypes. You are right about the data on isolated tribes...there arent any. It is even possible that they have different chromosome numbers...something that might also be true for Neandertals. By the way, different chromosome numbers usually block admixture events...

Yes Reinhard. In fact sometimes one does find anatomically similar tribals albeit rarely, may be due to chance mutations if not due to survival from the lineage of neonderthals. But I'm a little skeptical about different chromosome numbers ! It may be true only if we want to explain their disappearance/extinction due to resulting infertility in the hybrids and finally somehow by chance the homo sapiens only surviving.

What about bringing to life a neonderthal by genetic engg. starting from the human DNA with the knowledge of the full genome of the Neonderthals and the fact of their almost complete similarity with humans ?

As I pointed out earlier all these are only post facto justifications and cannot be taken as predictions of Darwinian evolution. For example, none of the pre-human species like gorrilas and shimpanzees or the various apes interbred and disappeared. If any of them would have disappeared by now we surely would have had a theory of hybridisation leading to such events as we have in case of humans and neonderthals. It is all so messy.

Regards,

Rajat

Rajat, I think there is no proof for interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans as long as no modern human DNA is found in Neandertal genomes. If there is only Neandertal DNA in modern human genomes, it rather points to a transformation of local Neandertals into modern humans. Gorillas and chimpanzees are no "pre-human" species, they are just as old as our lineage is. Species come and go and it does not depend on any fitness level.

"The question then is why at the human level things start becoming other than natural ? Is it an indication of something other than nature which starts manifesting only in the human being and not in other species that can alter the course of evolution of species in addition to natural selection ?"

Culture, technology, memes - if you like that metaphor.

Joachim, genetic admixture data with an unidirectional gene flow only have been found in other species too. They just don't make much sense based on currently accepted genetic theories. If members of different species interbreed, they are 50/50 genetic hybrids. Even rare interbreeding events must result in remnants of both DNAs in both populations. By the way, I think natural selection works great within a species...but has nothing to do with speciation. ;-)

Dear Reinhard,

I think the neonderthals might have perished due to inbreeding rather than interbreeding with modern humans. This would be a more tenable explanation since interbreeding does not result in fittest offspring and Darwin would want them to go for the fittest and this is probably the best scientific reason why interbreeding is not a natural phenomenon, unless there is a real crisis. Your last statement that "natural selection has nothing to with speciation" really is thought provoking and needs deeper anlysis.

Regards

Rajat

There is much more to species evolution than natural selection. Natural selection alone predict continuous changes. The fossil record indicates that evolution proceed by stable periods where not much evolution take place separated by short period of rapid evolution of new species. These observations do not imply that natural selection is invalid but it implies that by itself it is not an sufficient explanation. The horizonal dynamic of the ecological relations between species has a lot to do with the punctuated equilibrium.

@Rajat

Yes, inbreeding might have been an issue regarding the demise of neandertals. However, isn't there always inbreeding at the start of a new species? Why is it sometimes deleterious, whereas in other cases it seems to be ok?

Regarding my thought provoking statement:

I think that natural selection leads to "fitter" individuals, but it does not lead to species barriers. For speciation to occur you need some kind of barrier and it isn't always a mountain or a river. Reproductive barriers are not the results of natural selection. Reproductive barriers are usually the result of different chromosome complements. Chromosomal aberrations cannot be the result of natural selection, because the spontaneous occurrence of a chromosomal translocation drastically decreases the fertility of a heterozygous carrier in a population. When you look, for example, at the karyotype of gibbons in comparison to humans, it remains a mystery how so many translocations can become homozygous in a population. (See attached link)

http://link.springer.com/static-content/images/940/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00114-014-1152-8/MediaObjects/114_2014_1152_Fig2_HTML.gif

@Louis

If the bodyplan (Bauplan) is encoded in the DNA and gene mutations add minor changes to the bodyplan, natural selection can only work on "phenotypic expressions" of these gene mutations. Right? If however the phenotype of a species remains stable for 100,000 years and all of a sudden you find a new species with a significantly different bodyplan in the upper layer of the fossil record, how can you ever explain it by gradualistic genetic models?

You have to be more specific. I don't see how ecological relations can explain punctuated equilibrium. I think Gould had a hard time to explain his own model...

Yes Reinhard,

I also have been thinking on this problem of preventing inbreeding in the beginning phase of a species. Someone has a thread started on this topic exactly but there are not many answers to date which would explain the issue. Surely this is a big question.

Darwinian evolution has to come up with some tenable justification for this, given the fact that inbreeding is neither natural nor is it helpful for the propagation of the species, as far as our current knowledge goes.

Regards

Rajat

Reinhard,

We have to distinguish the phenomenon of biological evolution of species from any specific theory whose purpose is to explain the phenomenon (perfect separation is not possible but at least we have to try) . There is two sides to punctuated evolution: the phenomenal side that has been documented and which is a characterisation of the phenomenal side of evolution, and the theoritical propositions (including the one of Gould) whose purpose are to explain the punctuated nature of the biological evolution.

I do not think that a bodyplan is encoded in DNA (I did some reading on that so it is not pure speculation). What is encoded is not the structure of the organism or its bodyplan but certain critical aspects guiding the embryogenesis which depend on totally unencoded realities of interaction of the embryo with its environment. And among the DNA, there are specific genes that most important with this embryogenesis process and even direct influence of the environmental conditions itself influenced by the genitor life experience have been shown to play a role.

Ecological relations constitude most of what environment is and so change to ecological relations during a period of extinction means a total environmental change. The dynamic of the ecological relations is the primary factor affecting the dynamic of adaptation. This is a life mirroring itself through this ecological dynamic that has not been taking into account into most evolutionary theories.

The above comments are general observations of a non-expert.

Rajat,

I think, according to standard models, at the beginning of a new species there will always be inbreeding. Only if several (unrelated) individuals of the "old" species would transform within one generation, would inbreeding be prevented...but I don't think you will find support in the "survival of the fittest mutant"-community for this scenario ;-)

Louis,

do you think the bodyplan is not encoded in the DNA or not encoded in the genes? There's a huge difference! I think that protein coding genes are just the building blocks of an organism, the bodyplan has to be encoded in the rest (98%) of the DNA. It seems that transposable elements do not insert by chance and repetitive sequences seem to contain some kind of information...

Regarding your hypothesis, I don't think that you can explain the transformation of a fertilized egg into a complex organism just by environmental interactions. At this high level of complexity (e.g. mammals) you need some kind of blueprint, but if you refer to the inheritance of epigenetic changes...I can live with it ;-)

When you do autopsies and study the complexity and precision of the human body, you realize that current "survival of the fittest mutant"-theories cannot be right. These theories might apply to bacterial colonies in petri dishes only.

I agree with your observation Reinhard on the inevitability of inbreeding unless several individuals simultaneously upgrade themselves to the enrollment list of the new species. This is again a very tricky thing considering the fact that mutations are random, and they are not supposed to act in a concerted manner to avoid inbreeding.

Regards

Rajat

Otto H. Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others developed evolutionary models, which might have been superior to current mainstream models, unfortunately they are not en vogue anymore...

Rajat,

actually I don't know of any testable predictions of the modern synthesis, but maybe we could discuss one of several examples, where the molecular genetic approach obviously fails to explain a natural phenomenon.

Maybe I just missed it (please tell me!!!), but I haven't found any mainstream explanation. This is just a text from my 2014 paper:

... the seasonal migration of Eastern North American monarch butterflies, which rather screams for an explanation. Every spring these butterflies start from a small area covered by pine forests in central Mexico heading north. It takes several migrating generations of butterflies during summer to reach their northern destination, which is south-eastern Canada. During fall, a new generation of monarchs migrates south to exactly the same pine forests in central Mexico their ancestors have overwintered in (Reppert et al. 2010). How can sporadic gene mutations ever lead to such a stunning multigenerational group behavior, when selection can only work on single individuals in a stable environment. A random mutation in monarchs, which sets their compass to north, is great during spring and summer, but kills the whole variant lineage of butterflies in fall. Consequently, the complete multigenerational migration pattern can only evolve in a saltatory manner at once, without any adaptation to the local environment.

Here's an excerpt from George C. Williams (1985. 'A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology.' Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 2: 1-27.) that happens to be relevant to your question.

"From this [...] theory of adaptation comes a reductionist methodology [...]. Its practitioners imagine that they understand a studied organism well enough to recognize certain of its features as components of some special problem-solving machinery. If other postulated components are not yet known, it is predicted that an appropriate investigation will reveal their existence. This is the most frequent kind of prediction now being practised in evolutionary biology and t has immensely enriched our understanding of organisms. The idea that a theory of evolution must predict future evolutionary change is unrealistic, but it has been the basis of some prominent criticisms of evolutionary reductionism."

Actually, I sanitized the quote from references to selfish-genes and the adaptationist programme, because that would only raise the ire of certain folks and thus distract from the content of the statement concerning prediction in evolutionary biology. Visit my blog for the full quote.

Dear Joachim,

Thank you very much for joining. This sounds like a case of "Shifting the responsibility ad infinitum" !

See, when the question posed is answered in a way that begs another question and then that one is answered in next begging yet another question, then there is surely something seriously wrong with what we mean by understanding. This is something like the question: what is the universe made up of ? --- to which we have all levels of answer with varying degrees of sophistication, but no ultimate answer to bank upon.

To my mind it (Evolution Theory) has no predictive power and is just an intelligent speculation which has helped science immensely. But something more seriously technical needs to be done about its predictive power, in order for it to be an acceptable scientific theory. And, this does not in any way take away any credit from the theory because of the sheer complexity of the problem of evolution that it addresses.

Regards,

Rajat

Rajat,

Evolutionary theory cannot predict if you will or will not get a third eye in the future, but it explains that, when any eye "appears" on evolutionary history, what caused it. And predicts that whenever it happens again, the explanation is one given by the theory.

Germ theory of disease cannot predict if you will or will not get a fluke tomorrow, but it explains when you got a fluke, what causes it. And predicts that whenever it happens again, the explanation is the one given by the theory.

If you ask your doctor to predict your next fluke or infection and if he fails, calling his medice something based on an "unacceptable scientific theory" is not really fair, right?

There's no logical basis to assume that an "acceptable scientific theory" that deals with historical and contingent outcomes have to make the kind of predictions that a law-like theory does. This is not the same as not do any predictions. With all respect, this is a sign that you did not did your homework on phylosophy of science and biology.

Neverthless, I have already pointed some general predictions of the evolutionary theory in this topic (Mar 29, 2014).

Dear Daniel,

It seems you are talking a bit emotionally on the issue ! Let's not forget the fact that whenever we have a scientific theory it does not only explain previously established facts, but also makes future predictions. You can take any theory you like. Explaining facts is certainly one of the criteria, but that does not waive the other one. We in physics have not spared any one including Newton and Einstein when it came to this. Biologists as a class are a bit emotional about their stuff. If it is unable to make any testable predictions, then so be it. It still remains as a valid theory, though not a SCIENTIFIC one! What is the harm ? Of course, you are free to relax the criteria and be happy with that.

Please do not make such personal attacks like not doing homeworks etc. Of course I am not peeved. But someone else in my place would certainly react strongly in a tit-for-tat manner.

With all love,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

You are right that scientific theories have to make SOME predictions, no desagreement here. But my central point, that passed untouched in your response, is the difference of historical and experimental science kinds of prediction. Evolutionary theory DO make predictions (see my Mar 29, 2014 response to your question). The problem is that you demand types of predictions ("what will happens to a specific species traits") that are impossible when dealing with contingential process like evolution. You are demanding a KIND of prediction that is possible for law-like theories, the one that deals with "natural kinds" or "classes", but not to evolutionary biology, that deals with "individuals" or "historical entities". This doesn't mean that there are no predictions, or that the process of inquiry used in historical sciences, that is evidence based, is not scientific.

This difference is everywhere in the litterature, so if you keep insisting on the same point, without pay some time to this specific litterature, and define by your own stands what kind of prediction you expect, no further enlightment is possible.

And you will keep getting some "emotion" from biologists only insofar as you dealing with historical outcomes. Experimental biology works pretty like physics&chemistry.

Please, take a look on my proposed predictions of evolutionary theory, and understand that not I, nor anyone or any evolutionary theory could tell you if a certain species will change preciselly in one way or another in the future, like we can talk about a star's evolution.

My best,

Daniel.

The current theory of biological evolution put constraints to the process of biological evolution but the process remain by nature contigent: constraints but under-contrainted. It is a contigent process:

Contigency: a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.

Two examples of contingent evolutions:

The lungs were derived from the swim-bladders of certain fish,

The inner ear bones that mediate hearing were derived from the jaw of an early fish.

I do not think that future improvements to the theory of evolution will predict these two evolutionary events.

But a lot of very important evolutionary events: such as the transitions to multi-cellular, the evolution of vision sytems have occured multiple times and although each of these events involved contigency, the events had to happen. Like the emergence of life. I also think that future evolutionary theories will thus reduce what is consider contigent. The scientific investigation on biological evolution really need some new evolutionary cases from extra terrestrial planets in order to advance. Maybe we wil discover that the evolution towards some form of intelligent life is common in the universe.

Dear Daniel,

While we agree that evolution theory cannot (and does not) predict anything specific and can (and should) be used only for settling history type issues, one thing should be there for sure. For example-- Consider the pre-dianosaur era. From No-dianosaur we had a transition to living dianosaurs. Now if we replicate (in the laboratory (!) exactly the same conditions that led to the transition, then repeatability criterion of science demands that there should be evolution of dianosaurs again ! This is in accordance with your statement that whenever, some one catches flu it must be following the same historical path as explained by evolution theory.

Now, can we be sure that in such a situation, dianosaurs will come back to life again under such favorable conditions, or, will we have to run for shelter under randomness of mutations?

Regards and Love,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

"Now if we replicate (in the laboratory (!) exactly the same conditions that led to the transition, then repeatability criterion of science demands that there should be evolution of dianosaurs again !"

Yes, agreed. If we have the complete knowledge and capacity to manipulate every necessary and sufficient condition to have something we could call a dinossaur (DNA base pairs, epigenetic marks, citoplasmatic conditions and environment that dinossours faced), and we were able to control it to avoid the contingences and randomness, i think we would get your non-avian dinossaur. If not, there's something missing in our knowledge of development.

Dear Daniel,

There you are. Evolution theory leaves a lot to be desired and is far from being a perfect theory Lot of ingredients are necessary to predict exactly how and why a particular species evolved. If we are unable to predict with certainty even now, given our much more detailed knowledge of genetics and environment and their interplay than we had at the time of Darwin, how can we accept wholesale the process of evolution sketched by Darwin so sketchily !

Surely, a lot more needs to be known and done in regard to Evolution of species.

The most fundamental questions are:

(1) What is it that evolves and why? (The Darwinian explanation for the "how" of evolution is still far from satisfactory).

(2) Why should species/individuals struggle for survival?

Regards,

Rajat

Sorry Rajat, you are making some mistakes here.

Your proposed a scenario which we CONTROL every conditions and outcomes in a developmental process to generate a single individual. We said not about the turnover of traits though generations! Evolution is not to control the development of a single phenotype! The fact that in nature things are not teleologically stipulated and controlled by us is THE REASON we cannot predict the outcomes you wish to, not a single individual, even less to an entire population. Dinosaur’s experiment is not about prediction!!!! Is about manipulation and control of development!!!

How did you not see how that the lack of the kind of prediction you wishing is an epistemological problem of our ability to predict an uncontrolled sort of contingent conditions? What mutations you will have tomorrow in your genome? You can tell me? What adversities will you find to survive or reproduce? Which other individuals of your or other species you will (or will not) have contact?

If I had created you in a lab with all knowledge and capacity of control your phenotype, I would know your diseases, and at least with a good degree o certain I could predict what others you possible have in the future, if I maintain you in my lab (don’t worry, I don’t have one), but I can never perfectly say what diseases you would get in the real contingent reality we live today!!!!

Your questions:

"(1) What is it that evolves and why? (The Darwinian explanation for the "how" of evolution is still far from satisfactory)".

- Anything that have heritable variation!!! Evolution is, by definition, heritable changes across generations!!! It can be adaptive when there are fitness differences in that variation, or not.

"(2) Why should species/individuals struggle for survival?"

- Maybe because resources are not infinity??? And because organisms vary in their traits and some will inevitablly be more successful than others in a long run if this success is heritable??? Organisms are not struggling to survive for a reason, simply those who survive and proliferate have what takes to, and maintain it across generations. Please look to the diffence of teleology and teleonomy. It is very important.

I suggest you to get a Futuyma's or Ridley's textbook on evolution and see if all update things since Darwin's original theory will benefit you. You are really lacking some content, and this is not a pejorative thing. The problem is that you are wanting to debate on points that you really did not fully understand or are enough not enough updated. Until you do it, i cannot be of any service in this tread, my friend.

My best regards,

Daniel

Thank you dear Daniel for the long post.

You wrote "The fact that in nature things are not teleologically stipulated and controlled by us is THE REASON we cannot predict the outcomes you wish to, not a single individual, even less to an entire population. ". I think this is what science is all about. Predicting the future given the initial conditions. Whether you call it teleology or causality does not matter much. Please get some update knowledge on the distinction between the two and how everything we do s teleologically controlled. For example my writing this post or your writing the previous post were teleological in nature: they are to serve a future cause. Similarly we eat and drink to maintain our lives is teleological all the way. How can you say that nature is not teleological and it is a fact ?

I'll try to look up what updated knowledge your suggested references provide.

Thank you agin.

Regards

Rajat

Daniel,

Why is it that hardcore darwinians always try to insult colleagues, whose questions they simply cannot answer...

Just relax ;-)

Rajat,

Science can only predict the outcomes by the initial condition in law-like process, as I stressed. Your bias from physics make you think all science is the same.

By your definition, if a doctor see my condition today he could say if I will get a flu tomorrow? No! So medicine is not science? As long as is a evidence based investigation, is science to me, Maybe we have to agree in desagree on that.

Evolution is not teleological, but it produces teleological adaptations though a teleonomic process. No matter how teleologicaly you behave, you cannot decide or control if your gamete's genome mutate for better or worse. This is a fact as much as nature is not teleological. For who's purpose was the exctinction of dinossaurs? No one. We mammals benefited from it, but not caused it in any understandble way.

Our behavior is teleological, science as a human subject also is, but evolution is a process in nature, not something we do. So you argument that all we do is teleological has no logical value to undertand how evolution happens.

Daniel,

it appears to me that you mostly repeat things you read in biology textbooks. You seem to be a clever guy, but you should start questioning standard models. You take the modern synthesis for granted, but it is just an anglo-saxon theory, which became dominant after world war II.

You should keep in mind that there are other theories, which are less lab-based...but are more compatible with the fossil record...which, after all, is the only reliable evidence of organic evolution.

You failed to make scientific or logic arguments there...Or to presented evidence against what you criticize. Without both, I can't change from the evidence-based ortodoxy.

You are right!

However, first we have to define what we want to explain: organic evolution based on the fossil record or lab-based evolution mostly based on a fruit fly

The problem is that the great paleontologists are all dead by now and "modern" evolutionary biology is dominated by molecular biologists and mathematicians.

So, if you want to broaden your view on organic evolution you have to read the older literature. Actually, just one book could change your life ;-)

O. H. Schindewolf, Basic questions in paleontology: geologic time, organic evolution, and biological systematics. (University of Chicago Press, ed. Reprint of the 1950 ed. published by Schweizerbart`sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1993), pp. 467.

If you are interested in the short version, you could read the introduction of my paper (2014), which includes many original quotations. Otto H. Schindewolf's theory was the accepted evolutionary theory in Germany 70 years ago. He was a great observer and thinker...

OK, I'll take a look on your paper first.

Hi Reinhard,

I read your paper.

Firstly, I have to say that I enjoyed reading it.

I think your focus on major genomic changes being a part of speciation process is very interesting and needed. But, sometimes I got myself questioning if you are not assuming too much processes from patters. As far as your evidence concerns, we can't tell that if a given chromosomal rearrangement was the cause of the isolation, or something that happened after, as a byproduct of it. Your model of trangenerational telomere shortening could be right, but evidence is missing that it is. I think you should look to that direction and gather more data.

My main disagreement with you is with your mischaracterization of what is the current evolutionary theory. You seems (rightly, I think) to be very critical to an evolutionary theory that is absolutely externalist. But this is a straw man of our current theory. And you commit the same mistake of those you criticize, but in the opposite extreme of internalism. This leads you to reject the huge sum of evidence that favor the process of adaptation of natural selection and how ecological and historical external process, together with internal mechanism shapes biodiversity. I think is very clear to the modern evolutionary theorist that evolution is a two step process. The first is the origin of novelty, the second in the change of its frequencies. A naive evolutionist could believe that selection is an all powerful process in which all is possible given heritable variability. But today we know the constraints and bias, that genetic and developmental process imposes to natural selection. This doesn’t mean that all the data about selection can be simply put under the carpet, and chose to believe in an orthogenetic explanation for adaptations.

Think in the vertebrate digestive system or a complex pattern of behavior like migrations, it's clear that the list of possible internal mechanisms of generation and bias of novelty had to be complemented by processes of differential retention and proliferation, to explain their high level of specificity to the ecological reality of species. No matter how big a genomic change is, the resulting phenotype, if not neutral, will do better or worse in a given environment. Selection is unavoidable as much as internal influences to phenotypic evolution to take place. Convergences and parallelism (using the definition by phylogenetic distance) shows that respectively.

It’s clear that tendencies of overemphasize some factor and ignore others can lead some good ideas to be ignored in history of science. I hope you develop further your models, with more evidence, and if they are right, that they can broader our understanding of evolution, like is desirable, so I wish you look more for the side of the process you are not, and refine your theoretical conclusion, getting rid of revolutionary excesses.

My best regards

Hi Daniel,

First of all, thanks for your interesting feedback!

We somehow switched from the testable predictions of Darwins theory to alternative evolutionary theories. ;-)

You accuse me of ignoring the (mostly lab-based) evidence. Yet, the old model of saltatory evolution of nonadaptive characters is based on the best evidence we have...which is the fossil record.

The problem with the modern synthesis is that it mostly ignores the fossil record or even worse interprets it so that it fits the theory:

“Darwin…writes: He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. … What Darwin did not seem to realize is that if the macromutation theory is correct, then the fossil record will forever be ‘extremely imperfect’ from the Darwinian point of view. The paleontological evidence clearly suggests the macromutation theory to be correct.” (Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,1987, p 144)

Even Simpson knew about the "breaks" in the fossil record:

“It has previously been pointed out how very unlikely, if not impossible, it is that such major saltations have occurred, according to present understanding of the genetic mechanism. … As I see it, then, all the evidence except that of the breaks in the record, is opposed to this theory, which thus merits further serious consideration, in the light of present knowledge, only if no alternative hypothesis is equally or more probable as an explanation of the breaks and is fully consistent with the other data.” (Simpson: Tempo and mode in evolution, pp.115-116 1944)

Otto H. Schindewolf wrote:

“…in biological fields, we must take the basic phenomena of life into account and use them in our deductions, even though for the time being we cannot determine their nature more precisely or explain their mechanics.” (Schindewolf, 1993 p.374)

I think, the modern synthesis (and its 100s of subtheories) somehow lost the connection to the basic phenomena of life.

The Danish embryologist Søren Løvtrup once commented: “And today the modern synthesis (…) is not a theory, but a range of opinions which, each in its own way, tries to overcome the difficulties presented by the world of facts” (Lovtrup 1987, p. 144).

Since the old model of saltatory evolution of nonadaptive characters was based on "real world evolution", but lacked any biological mechanisms, I developed a biological framework. In short, transgenerational telomere erosion is the trigger of chromosomal change and activates (retro)transposons, which facilitate the sudden phenotypic change.

So, there is no need for the struggle for existence or any asteroid impacts. According to Otto H. Schindewolf, geological catastrophes would be only the last hit, putting an end to a process that had been underway for ages for internal reasons. “It is the same as when the wind finally topples an old and rotten tree” (Schindewolf 1993, p. 319).

As you can see, it is a completely different evolutionary model and it is solely based on intrinsic mechanisms of extinction and speciation.

I know, it is hard to believe that our currently accepted models of evolution could be just based on some kind of "intellectual masturbation" (meant in a humorous way). ;-)

The future will tell, who is right.

When I look at the (new) confusing genome sequencing results, where species separated and interbred again...where flightless giant birds developed in parallel, after reaching their destinations by flying...and so on...I am not without hope ;-)

Cuvier, one of the pioneers of in the systematic study of animal fossil records never could accepted the evolutionary theories of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire which would have given rise to uniform/gradual evolutions. Cuvier believed there was evidences for for successive creations after catastrophic extinction events.

More recently, the complete fossil record found in the small quarry near the Burgess Pass in the mountains of British Columbia convinced Gould that biological evolution was not gradual but proceeded by punctuated equilibrium.

Reinhard (and Louis too).

1 - We have evidence of continuous and discontinuous fossil records.

2 - Geologists and paleontologists are aware of how rare is the formation a fossil (anyone who passed by a taphonomy class should not be surprise that we do not have all fossil history recorded). Not, Gould, or any other person can tell us if a fossil record are or not complete. A gap can be due saltational change, punctuated change in rates of evolution, but also lack of data. We cannot assume our epistemological gap as an ontological one.

3 - Eldredge and Gould model of punctuated equilibria is related to discontinuity on geological scale (periods of stasis and change alternated - but change, when happened, could have been gradual in a sense of population ecology change of traits).

Fast phenotypic discontinuities, like in Schindewolf’s or Goldschmidt’s ideas, are related to proposed mechanisms of saltatory phenotypic changes in short scales.

4 - Evidence shows that not all phenotypic change needs to be gradual - but adaptive ones almost always have. Phenotypic changes can be neutral, deleterious or beneficial. Adaptation only happens when some causal process eliminate the deleterious and maintain the beneficial.

Reinhard,

Your model of evolution did not explain the fit between organisms and environments, i.e. adaptation. You dichotomize evolutionary evidence as lab or fossil, but forget to look to natural population’s dynamics and changes of traits, where a great part of evidence for natural selection is. Are you familiar with ecology?

You say and cites Schindewolf: "So, there is no need for the struggle for existence or any asteroid impacts. According to Otto H. Schindewolf, geological catastrophes would be only the last hit, putting an end to a process that had been underway for ages for internal reasons. “It is the same as when the wind finally topples an old and rotten tree” ".

Well, but ecological evidence and fossil evidence does not support this claim of yours for much of data about extinction. It's an interesting idea if we considers only the part of catastrophic changes, and may be true for some groups if you turn to be right on some points you make, but without evidence... But surely is not an absolute rule, since extinctions happened in historical time, by competition. It's documented. Why ignore it?

And why you think fitness doesn’t matter? A species that are “rotten” surely are failing to survive/reproduce properly, right? I find that you didn’t see that struggle for existence is not necessarily really some direct between organisms struggle.

And if a species are “rotten” and other ones are not “rotten” by intrinsic causes, those who are “not rotten” will be selected (i.e. will have differential, non-random survival and reproduction) due FITNESS DIFFERENCES!!” It would be a instance of species level selection due species fitness!

Again, I’ll repeat my advice – look to the other side of the coin!!! No internalist or externalist perspective alone will answer our doubts about biological evolution.

Daniel,

let me respond to your interesting remarks by using quotations of my favored experts ;-)

ad 1) Yes, you are right! That's also part of Schindewolf's model.

“Once the basic forms of the individual structural designs had been established, however, a continuous, slow evolution set in, which can be clearly followed thanks to the presence of closed series of gradually changing forms” (Schindewolf 1993, p. 124).

ad 2) In his book The New Evolutionary Timetable, the American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley convincingly describes what the major problems of Darwinism and the modern evolutionary synthesis are. He states that the Pleistocene sediments at thousands of collecting sites have uncovered at least 85 % of the mammalian species living today, and therefore the fossil record can no longer be regarded as providing an incomplete picture of evolution (Stanley 1984, p. 97). Most importantly, Stanley mentions the puzzling paleontological fact that within less than 12 million years, most of the living orders of mammals developed, including such diverse animals as lions, wolves, bears, horses, rhinos, deer, pigs, antelopes, sheep, bats and whales, all having descended from a tiny animal resembling a small rodent (Stanley 1984, p. 93). He further concluded: “We can now show that fossil mammal populations assigned to a particular Cenozoic lineage typically span the better part of a million years without displaying sufficient net change to be recognized as a new species. (…) If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or 15 chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale” (Stanley 1984, p. 93). “Our only reasonable recourse is to abandon gradualism in favor of punctuated evolution, which can account for the rapid changes for which we see evidence. These changes must have been brought about by strongly divergent steps that came in rapid succession” (Stanley 1984, p. 90).

ad 3) You are right!

ad 4) For selection and adaptation to work you need gradual changes. Saltational phenotypic changes cannot be explained by currently accepted molecular models...this might be the reason, why the massive evidence in the fossil record is ignored.

“Selection by itself absolutely cannot create something new directly, but can only shape and develop what is already in existence. … Selection is only a negative principle, an eliminator, and as such is trivial: it asserts and explains only the nonexistence of forms that could not possibly exist under the conditions in question.” (Schindewolf 1993 p 360)

Do you really believe in the continuous struggle for existence?

"Of all the species that have existed at one time or another on earth, only about 1 in 1,000 is still alive; hence 99.9 % of species died out (Raup 1991, pp. 3–4)." (Stindl 2014)

"Besides a steady level of background extinction, there have been five mass extinction events during the last 600 million years (Hallam and Wignall, ’97). Although the ‘Big Five’ were important, their combined species kill accounted for only about 4% of all extinctions in the past 600 million years (Raup, ’94), casting doubt upon the significance of physical threats for species extinction." (Stindl 2004)

99.9% looks pretty impressive to me. Must be a very efficient biological mechanism. I think it is aging at the species level.

And yes, if you think that a pensioner is less fit than a youngster, it is also about fitness...however the underlying cause is still intrinsic ;-)

Hi Rainhard,

Stanley assertion on fossil history is inacurrate. He's talking of recent and short period fossils. There's a clear bias on that conclusion. I'm working with mammals (xenarthrans) and is clear that the fossil record is not as good as he claims. Mostly to ancetral, exctinc taxa. So his analysis was just a sample, which is not representative. And as i said, some taxa show a completelly gradual fossil record, so at least in those we know for sure that punctuation did not happened. Gould recognized that evidence on his 2002 book.

On the 99,9% of exctinc taxa, we have to reason: "species" to a paleontologists are only recognized due morfological changes, so this number cam and possibly are a little inflated (not much, I guess) and it contains all (discovered) intermediate forms of the living ones, so much of those are ancestors to those who survive today, and in those, the non-random persistence and plurification process you like to call struggle for existence is evidential, like as you said, fitness has (ALSO) to do, and I think we agree on that, with intrinsic causes.

Schidewolf is right that selection is a eliminative force, but elimination of one form inevitably promotes maintanence of other, and surelly constrains and bias the history of life. But he is wrong, and there's abundat evidence, that selection is not just the elimination of the most unfit, but the elimination of the relativelly unfit to a given ecological context, and maintanece of the relativelly fitter ones.

Hi Daniel,

Ok, I can live with that.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Thank you too Reinhard,

Keeps me informed of any news in your research line!

You can also do "quick" selection, adaptive, and "evolutionary" experiments with bacteria. Read Paul W. Ewald "books and other.  You don't have to wait thousands of years to see evolution in action.  Sometimes evolution works fast; bottlenecks, etc....

Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.

(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).

(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Dear Bhakti Nishkama Shanta ji, Hare Krishna!

Thank you for bringing life into this thread after a long sleep. I had forgotten about this question and all the discussion.

Anyway, granting your framework, these questions still need to be addressed:

(1) Apropos your first point: What about viruses, which are living in a particular environ and and dead outside?

(2) Why life starts to make its presence manifest at the cellular level and how? What prevents it from manifesting at sub-cellular levels?

(3) What is cognition at the cellular level in a multi-celled organism, if not mere biochemical signal-response? How do you know about such cellular cognition apart from the unjustifiable analogy with single-celled organisms like amoeba?

Never mind the downvotes here-- they will increase with time, as expected!

Regards,

Rajat

You can find a lot of good discussion on this paper at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/online_sadhu_sanga/Mcv2O-yhqLE

Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta ji,

My questions are straight forward and simple and they need to be answered straight away, rather than redirecting me to some discussion forum.

Hi Rajat, Please ignore Bhakti's spamming.

Darwin's Theory predicts that isolated life forms evolve to exploit available resources. New species are generated based on their ability to exploit these resources.

Darwin's theory is the only viable explanation for the diverse life forms seen on isolated islands that are not found anywhere else. (e.g.Galapagos, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Madagascar, Indonesia, Tasmania, Guam, Iceland, Cuba, Antartica, etc. etc.) 

Sorry Rajat, my list of isolated islands with unique flora and/or fauna found nowhere else on earth was incomplete.

I have to include these to my original list of islands that have some unique flora and/or fauna species that are found nowhere else on earth:

Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu), Okinawa, Caroline Islands, Gilbert Islands, Mariana Islands, Marshall Islands,  American Samoa, Cook Islands, Easter Island, French Polynesia, Niue, Norfolk Island,  Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Wallis and Futuna, Rotuma, South  Kuril Islands, Taiwan, Bering Island, Toporkov Island, Gilbert Island, Georgia Island, New Caledonia, West Papua, Haiti, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Cape Verde, Tristan da Cunha, Marion Island, Falklands, Canary Islands, Ibiza, Crete, St. Helena, Ascension Island, etc.

Darwin's theory is the only logical explanation  for this phenomenon.

@Steingrimur Stefansson

Thank you very much for your reply.

But, are they testable predictions?

Can we say on the basis of Darwin's theory that because of such and such conditions such and such species must evolve (have evolved) and then go on to new Zealand or whatever island(isolated or otherwise) to verify the same?

I believe that there can always be found some specific species corresponding to each specific location on earth that have not evolved elsewhere if we look pretty closely at the genome of that species compared to others of that type elsewhere. Some specific differences will definitely be there.

Darwin's categorization was rather broad based on external features and they can be made on a more finer genetic basis, then we can probably see such  location-specific genes.

In any case, what are the testable predictions?

Hi Rajat, Darwin's theories absolutely make testable predictions.

The mainstay of Darwin is "Survival of the fittest".

This phrase has been much maligned and has been associated with eugenics, racism, Nazis, ethnic cleansing, religion, etc, etc. Feeble minds always want some academic justification of the horrors that they inflict on their fellow human beings.

"Survival of the fittest" only means survival of individuals that can cope with changing ecosystems/disease/natural disaster/invasive species, etc and are able to flourish despite the adversities. This survival often depend on genetic mutations that favor their carriers

The testable predictions of Darwinism on human populations has already occurred many times and it is "survival of the fittest". 1) mutations in the hemoglobin gene that protects against malaria 2) mutations in the CCR-5 receptor gene that protected against bubonic plague 3) mutations that allowed metabolism of lactose. 4) mutations that decreased melanin in skin cells and allow more synthesize of Vit. D.5) FOXP mutations that facilitate human speech.

Thank you very much Steingrimur Stefansson. These were predictions from Darwin's theory or are they mere post-facto justifications?

what does "fittest" mean when we see that the weakest of species survive for periods beyond imagination? We would of course find out some reason to justify always and bend the definition of "fittest" to suit the convenience in any particular case.

What are the criteria for fitness? What is truly responsible in the above examples cited by you for the appropriate kinds of mutations that have occurred to ensure survival?

Hi Rajat, Evolution can be boiled town to two facts: 1) descent with modification. 2) natural selection.

Nobody disputes the facts of 1). Offsprings of male and female sex are not clones of either parent. There is gene shuffling, differential splicing, mutations due to polymerase errors, etc.

2) is natural selection. In literature, this is often referred to as "survival of the fittest". As I said before, this phrase has been misinterpreted by radical idealists to justify their repugnant agendas.

I am therefore a bit disappointed that you latch on to my "survival of fittest" as a retort. But, you are actually making the case for me. I said that the "fittest" argument has, and is being used as an emotional tool for idealists.

I never thought that you would walk right into it:

"what does "fittest" mean when we see that the weakest of species survive for periods beyond imagination? We would of course find out some reason to justify always and bend the definition of "fittest" to suit the convenience in any particular case."

"What are the criteria for fitness?What is truly responsible in the above examples cited by you for the appropriate kinds of mutations that have occurred to ensure survival?"

Alright. The question is on prediction.

Can we predict that humans will be immune to malaria, just as mosquitoes became immune to DDT and quinine by natural selection? After how many generations?

TESTABLE PREDICTIONS are required of a scientific theory.

If we can predict on the basis of Darwin's theory that in such and such species will develop such and such a trait after so many generations then we have succeeded in giving a testable prediction.

And then of course will have to wait for the predicted time/generation limit to be over, and we can verify whether Darwin's theory is scientific or not.

Hi Rajat, nice evasions. Americans will call your recent post as "moving the goalpost".

This means that you are modifying your arguments to fit with your current narrative when your previous arguments do not hold water.

Did I say anything about how many generations it would take for Natural Selection to have an effect. The answer is No.  

The question is not about prediction. The question is about intellectual honesty.

Can you state that your opposition to Evolution is not based on your religion?

Hi SS,

Please see my explanation below the original question. I have only reiterated the same stance regarding testable predictions. No moving of goalposts. The goalpost stays put as strongly as ever.

Testable predictions are required of a scientific theory and Darwin's theory mus be able to make some definite testable predictions. where have I evaded anything? It is as clear as ever. if you have any predictions to make then please go ahead and we will wait and watch. Please see my earlier posts on this thread in this regard.

Next, Intellectual Honesty.  How do you define it? To the charge that That I oppose evolution, i reply in the negative (please see my earlier posts on this thread, where I have clearly stated that I am not against Darwin's theory or opposed to evolution. I sincerely want the theory to be a successful scientific one by making perfectly testable and accurate predictions and may be some day we may achieve it.

Next, regarding the charge that my assumed (by you & others) opposition to Darwin's theory derives from my religion, i would like to remind you of the famous Dasavatara --the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu starting from fish to Buddha and Kalki which represents a gradational evolution of life-forms from aquatic onwards.

And there are many passages in Hindu texts which testify to there having been gradual evolution, (by God's will of course--as you know they are  religious texts) up to the level of man, where the possibility of divine knowledge appears, it satisfies the Lord very much (Srimad Bhagavatam). You can educate yourself on this issue further if you like by making a google search.

So not only your accusation that I am opposing Darwin's theory is wrong, your presumption that I derive such an (assumed) opposition from my religion is also unfounded.

What more proof of Intellectual honesty do you want?

Hi Rajat, your indignation is duly noted. Sadly, your indignation clouds your scientific reasoning.

Evolution has two central tenets which are 1) Descent with modifications. and 2) Natural selection.

1) Descent with modifications is an unassailable biologic fact based on mutations, gene shuffling, etc.

2) Natural selection is also an unassailable biological fact because ~99% of all lifeforms that ever existed on earth are now extinct.

You can debate 1) and/or 2)  in a scientific manner showing intellectual honesty. But I will give you a way to evade the above topics and intellectual honesty altogether and focus on my attack on your religion. Please pay attention.

Here is my attack on your religion. I will put it in quotation marks so that you can use it without paraphrasing. "I think that  your religion is clouding your scientific judgment"

Please feel free to attack my quoted statement without addressing Evolution tenets 1) and 2) posted above.

Dear SS,

Why do you want to attack any religion ---mine or yours or whosoever else's? What do you stand to gain by that? Let religions have their own say and let's keep scientific discussions at its own level.

your indignation is also duly noted dear SS. In fact it seems very unusual now to hold any further discussion with you because of your attack-counter attack strategy.

What do you want me to say so that you will be satisfied and will be sure that my religion does not in way cloud my scientific understanding?

Why don't you give one prediction straightaway using all your expertise in Darwin's theory? Possible choices can be:

(1) Humans and other animals will become disease-resistant or pollution-resistant because of continuous exposure to, and increasing threat from, pollution.

(2) Humans may get rid of some organs or develop faculties of higher intelligence due to training in several hundreds of generations.

the only thing is you have to be precise.

I think what is clouding your scientific understanding here is a bias against some religion, and it will do us no good.

The religion part in this thread you have unnecessarily dragged in, since you have some misconception that all religions are against evolution, right?

So let's give a bye to the religion part of it and think of  finding out testable predictions from one of the most successful theories of modern science.

Please continue the dialogue on this very serious thing, keeping aside religion and attack-counter-attack etc. Do you feel good by attacking someone? Let's not give it any ugly turn and let's part if we don't or cannot continue with only the scientific part of it anymore.

Religion we can debate elsewhere in some other forum, not on RG and certainly not on this thread.

Thank you and best regards,

Rajat

I paste below a fragment from a book (The Biotic Message, By Walter ReMine :116):

Another instance of the same sort of abuse of science is tautological statements that are true by definition, untestable and unfalsifiable. I have no problem with these as a matter of truth. Example: "Those that have eyes, let them see." There are some layers of meaning there and the statement works to define itself as true. But that's not scientific. It is more poetic, which suits me fine. Yet with respect to natural selection the evolutionists are writing tautological poetry such as, "Those that survive, they're the ones that survive!" or "Survival of the fittest, that's the survival of the ones that were fit!" That's religious and poetic language apparently based on the veneration of Nature's supposed selections. Perhaps there is reason for the religious language as after all, how does Nature "select" something? Are there unnatural selections? If there are, then are the natural selections falsifiable by the unnatural selections?

Here is a good summary on natural selection, as perhaps Nature has selected some shifty arguments for evolutionists.

Formulations of natural selection fall into four groups: tautologies, special

definitions, metaphysics, and lame formulations (T, SD, M, L).

• Tautologies are not testable scientific explanations. They are definitions

masquerading as explanations.

• Special definitions are a multitude of conflicting explanations masquer-

ading as a single unified theory.

• Metaphysical explanations are not testable, therefore they are not

scientific.

• Lame formulations do not even address the problem of adaptation,

therefore they cannot solve it.

None of these formulations scientifically solves the problem of adaptation and

design.

The illusion that “natural selection is science” was created by shifting back

and forth between formulations. The shifting was concealed by various factors:

• Vague and ambiguous keywords (like fitness)

• Rapid shifting between formulations

• Over-emphasis of peripheral issues, like reproduction and probability

Evolutionists erroneously read the absence of Lamarckian inheritance as evidence for natural selection. Lamarckian inheritance is a simple, plausible, evolutionary mechanism. It would be a powerful aid to evolution. Its absence is actually a puzzle in evolutionary theory. Moreover, the broad absence of Lamarckian inheritance is a straightforward prediction of message theory. Life was designed to resist all naturalistic explanations of origin, so the absence of Lamarckian inheritance is completely understandable to creationists.

Hi Rajat, I gave you a (sarcastic) way to evade the topic at hand (Evolution) by talking about religion. I thought you would evade religion and talk about science. Boy, was I was wrong.

A recap,  copy/paste of my posts:

"Here is my attack on your religion. I will put it in quotation marks so that you can use it without paraphrasing. "I think that  your religion is clouding your scientific judgment"

Please feel free to attack my quoted statement without addressing Evolution tenets 1) and 2) posted above"

What I posted were the undisputable tenets of Evolution: 1) Descent with modification and 2) Natural selection. To further clarify: 

1) Descent with modifications is an unassailable biologic fact based on mutations, gene shuffling, etc.

2) Natural selection is also an unassailable biological fact because ~99% of all lifeforms that ever existed on earth are now extinct."

To be clear: I do not give a rodents anus about scientists religious beliefs. But I expect scientists to debate the pros/cons of available natural data without involving supernatural beings.

Are you up for it?

Sure enough SS.

You should read all my answers on this thread to about 10 to 15 respondents and you will find what I mean. And you will find that i meant exactly what I have put in the question. Absolutely Nothing to do with any religion whatsoever.

Emilio Carvantes' above post may be taken note of here.

One more thing that distinguishes a biologist from a physicist is probably the fact that the latter are never satisfied with their theories and they continue to work upon them, refine them, if found inadequate throw them away. See, we were not satisfied with any of the Physical theories by Newton etc or of Darwin's era. we are not satisfied with Relativity and Quantum Theory. We joined them into quantum field theories and physicists are still not satisfied. They are not satisfied with four fundamental forces, they want one unified force and hence hundreds of them are busy in finding something that supersedes the currently accepted standard models of cosmology and particle physics. Physicists dare propose ever newer things, they dare question the old theories ruthlessly and find better replacements. You know all these things, \i suppose.

Because I found precisely what Emilio has suggested above to be true of Darwin's theory, I went ahead and asked this question for a better appreciation from Biologists. But I see that personal attacks finally are heaved upon me.

No one has given a single prediction so far on the basis of Darwin's theory, even with regard to the future of the simplest life form:  Amoeba. I would have loved to get such accurate and to-the-point answers from biologists.

Best Regards,

Rajat

Thank you Emilio for coming in at the right time.

this is what I wanted to convey. It is very sad that practicing biologists choose to close their eyes to such observations and start unduly attacking people who raise the issue.  As  a Physicist my training tells me that any theory must make testable predictions, not just justifications of what happened in the past. That is of course necessary but the prediction part also must be there.

You have posted the most appropriate stuff on this thread.

Thank you very much and my very Best Regards,

Rajat

Hi Rajat, before you leave in a huff, can we please have a scientific discussion?

Lets wipe the slate clean. I promise not to disparage any religion. You promise to discuss science.

OK?

What I posted were the undisputable tenets of Evolution: 1) Descent with modification and 2) Natural selection. To further clarify:

1) Descent with modifications is an unassailable biologic fact based on mutations, gene shuffling, etc.

2) Natural selection is also an unassailable biological fact because ~99% of all lifeforms that ever existed on earth are now extinct."

Hi Emilio. Seriously, did you not think I would I would check your sources?

You quote a book published in 1993 by the noted creation scientist W. J. Remine

http://creation.com/the-biotic-message-book-review

He is a religious freak that believes that Adam and Eve existed in Eden with dinosaurs that only ate grass and were expelled from Eden because Eve ate an apple from a tree that God planted and forbade them to eat.  Is God stupid? Why did God plant the tree of knowledge in Eden? Why didn't God place the tree where nobody could find it?

This is what I love about RG. You have to post under your name with your creds and challenge people on scientific merits

Hey Emilio and Rajat. Want to talk about how people portray God as stupid to advance their personal beliefs? 

Dear SS,

I don't dispute your points 1 and 2 as the basic well-known tenets of evolution. every high school student knows them.  Why do you keep reiterating them?The question is about testable predictions and you are smart enough to keep avoiding that issue. Instead you want to discuss God, religion and all else.

Of course, Dianosaur extinction (if due to meteor showers) may not fall under your point 2. Similarly, any sudden extinction due to natural disasters like volcanic eruption etc. will not come under 2. Further, species that become extinct due to poaching or other human activity need not fall under 2. Extinction need not always be due to being unfit to adapt. That will come only when sufficient time is granted for adaptation.

IMPOPRTANT: Just give one prediction on the basis of Darwin's theory, that will be sufficient and we can then take rest.

I have all along been discussing science only in all these more than 90 posts, you can check. It is only you who had some misconception and who dragged religion etc in to the discussion. Didn't you?

It has been nice interaction with you, except for your hurtful language.

Best Regards,

Rajat

Hi Rajat, Cool down. Lets not talk religion, OK

Darwin's theory predicts 1) Descent with modification and 2) Natural selection.

This has been proven over and over again in classrooms all over the world by plating E. coli on agar plates with and without antibiotics You will get E. coli colonies that are resistant to antibiotics.

What more do you need? Also, Please don't play a victim! 

As a budding scientist you should realize that  you will be challenged. Believe me, I am holding back punches.  Some on your thesis committee might not.

Thank you very much SS for your restraint. I should add a little more to the explanation below the original question. These two points that you list are the postulates on which it rests, if they are the predictions also, then the matter ends there. The question is can we form a statement following from these premises that will make the theory falsifiable?

Let me tell you also, Why this question arose in the first place?

The two most important thinkers on Scientific theories in the last century were Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Thomas Kuhn hit upon the idea of "Paradigm shifts" in the development of theories, where an old and widely accepted theoretical model gives place to a new one which supersedes the former as a more elegant and more encompassing description of natural phenomena on the basis of fewer number of basic postulates.

You know that Karl Popper found on the basis of Godel's Incompleteness theorems that All scientific theories must be falsifiable. Falsifiability is a basic requirement of a theory to be scientific. Falsifiability requires that a theory make testable predictions on the basis of which it can be refuted.

And believe it or not, the best theories in Physics starting from Newton's classical mechanics to Einstein's Relativity and then the most successful Physical theory viz. Quantum Theory have all been shown to be falsifiable. That is beyond their domain of applicability, if applied they will lead to predictions which will falsify them.

It is in this backdrop that i asked the question since it seemed to me that Darwin's theory does not make any specific predictions.

Your points are very well taken and they are very well-known . Some of the earlier respondents on this thread had already made all these points very clear right from the first day of putting this question.

It requires deeper thought. Anyway thank you very much for your concerns.

Let me add in regard to your concluding lines:

I am not a budding scientist that is going to flower into something in future! So please don't worry on that count. I am doing science for the sheer fun of it, for the very pleasure of it, trying to put a few loose ends together, if I can, in an inter-disciplinary manner. 

You have already given enough punches and should be satisfied by now!

Best Regards,

Rajat

 Dear Steingrimur Stefansson 

Did you read the book that you quoted "The Biotic Message (1993)" of Walter Remine?.

The author shows, using only a lot of quotes from known evolutionists, how the Evolution theory is not an actual Theory, because of the same reasons that had moved Rajat to propose this question here. He never used any religious argument in this book. He said that Evolution is a smorgasbord of competing and conflicting theories in attempts to explain adaptation. He proposed another scientific theory, which is falsiable. That theory was named with the name of his book.

If as I think, you do not have read this book, I commend it to you because it could give a lot of matter of reflexion on this and related issues.

Hi Guillermo, why dont you ask prostrate cancer patients why chemical castration therapy never works to cure the cancer. .Also ask why European settlers gave native populations clothes with fleas carrying smallpox that the Europeans had developed immunity to.

Also ask yourself why isolated islands and isolated habitats developed distinct species found nowhere else on earth. Evolution is not a "smorgesboard of competing and conflicting theories"

Darwin's theories are very direct and testable: 1) Descent with modification and 2) natural selection.

They have has been shown to withstand challenges from genetics, evolutionary biology, embryology, geology, physics, comparative physiology, microbiology, medicine, protein chemistry, cell biology. virology, immunology. physical chemistry., zoology, etc, etc.

Just remember that evidence for Darwin's theories are growing day by day.1000s of articles are being published every year by 1000s of researchers.

If you want to hang your professional hat on an unknown author that is paid by Creation Ministries and will soon fade into obscurity, then go ahead.

Dear Steingrimur Stefansson

I am looking for the truth about the Origin of the Species, and think that the number of authors per se do not show that they are more near of It that any single author.

Between the many articles that you mention do you know of any that could falsify the Biotic Message Theory?

You do not answered my question. "Did you read the book that you quoted "The Biotic Message (1993)" of Walter Remine?."

Walter Remine in his book showed how the many evolucionist's articles discussed in his book were contradicting to each other. They never produced any armonic and congruent theory that could explain the origin of the species. 

He is waiting (http://saintpaulscience.com/index.html) that someone could refute him, but after 23 years he goes on imperturbable because in his study he has only used the arguments of some evolucionist to debunk the argument of the others and viceversa. Between his scarce opponents, nobody could present a version of the evolution theory congruent and falsiable.

 Hi Guillermo,

Thank you very much for the reference to the website. In fact, I never read this book by ReMine, and I regret that I missed it for so long. 

Regards,