Re: Co-optation Today

On Jan 1, 10:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Jan 1, 7:33 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Jan 1, 6:47 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Jan 1, 11:27 am, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 1, 10:08 am, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Where do we see evidence of an ongoing co-optation process by
observing a living organism with a feature in the transitional state
of having concurrent uses in dissimilar old and new functions?

The more complex the feature, the better.

As I understand it, every creature is either transitional or on it's
way to extinction.  Since mutations invariably occur, absolute stasis
isn't possible.

Not true. There is no evolutionary principle here. Yes, mutations
occur and populations change. But there is no requirement for
speciation to ever occur, nor any reason why a species should go
extinct were separate species not to arise. Stasis seems more the rule
than the exception according to evolutionists. It isn't broken by
extinction or mutations coming and going, it is broken by mechanisms
theorized to cause speciation, such as geographical isolation. Remove
the isolation, you don't automatically get extinction.

Nor does speciation have much if anything to do with transition.

You say that because fossils that are claimed to be transitional can't
always be placed on a species level.

No, that's not why I say it.

Well the word transitional is pretty much interchangeable with
intermediate amongst evolutionists, and I doubt you would deny that
identifying changes that occur as a result of the process of
speciation is the reason for why transitionals are identified in the
fossil record.

No, I would deny that. I don't think changes occur as a result of the
process of speciation. I think changes are orthogonal to speciation.
Speciation can't really be detected in the fossil record.

So much for that. :)  The line forms right ahead for entrance to the
creation camp.

There is something seriously important that you aren't understanding
here, but I can't tell what.

But you know I am.

Now in fact we describe species in the fossil record on the basis of
morphological differences, but we really have no good idea whether the
entities so described bear any resemblance to the biological species we
see in the present. Or rather, I should say we have a good idea that
they don't, but have nothing better to substitute.

Didn't I make some mention about this a couple times already? Does it
need to be beaten to death? No, in fact you cannot with any confidence
place a species label on any fossil. But it is done a whole bunch,
John. Did you lose your book or what.

They're convenient labels for the only entities we can distinguish,
which are morphotypes. I don't see how this is a problem for evolution.
Can you explain?

I have said nothing about species concept being a problem for
evolution.

Here's a couple examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
"The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:"

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
"Stephen Jay Gould : The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the
fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current
antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and
for two sets of good reasons -- geological (the gappiness of the fossil
record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change,
including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within
small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists
have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and
sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about
the reality of life's physical genealogy."

Transitionals certainly have much to do with speciation.

Yes, Gould thought so. Gould was wrong. The examples he mentions are of
transitions between morphotypes. But whether speciation was happening
during that transition is another question entirely, one that the fossil
record just can't answer.

Regardless, the nature of biological transitionals is between one form
and another. And in an evolutionary context, that is speciation. The
whole kit and kaboodle hangs on it, and you know it is very clear and
basic.

No. Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation between
populations. Speciation is *not* morphological change, however
extensive. The whole kit and kaboodle does not hang on morphological
change being speciation.

Next you will tell me that transitionals are selected for other than
morphological differences, or what?
John, reproductive isolation doesn't "evolve", and is not evolution.
How's that for talking past each other?
The kit and kaboodle being evolutionary theory, hangs on speciation.

Of course it does. PE - periods
of stasis interrupted by rapid change. Rapid not meaning overnight of
course. Were all change transitional (which your understanding here
would allow), there would be *no* periods of "stasis".

I don't understand the logic behind any of this.

Oh well. Must be convenient. Often after saying that you don't
understand, you answer anyway. I should just wait.

Sometimes I make a lucky guess at what you meant. Is that a reason not
to explain when I say I don't understand?

But then you could go on and on till you got the right combination out
of me to respond to.

?

The
idea that speciation is required to break stasis is of course the main
element of PE. But PE is not really a live theory, as far as I can tell.
Change may be punctuated (i.e. happens at varying rates), but there is
no reason to suppose it's coincident with speciation, which is the
evolution of reproductive isolation.

However, Inez is wrong. Absolute stasis would be possible if every new
mutation were selectively disadvantageous.

Or advantageous then lost.

If they were advantageous, we wouldn't expect them to be lost, though of
course there are always stochastic effects.

You might expect the moon to turn green too, but one justso story has
no more weight than another. And there are many, utilizing many
processes and mechanisms.

I wouldn't expect the moon to turn green. That would seem physically
impossible, unless you got many trillions of tons of paint. Your
intellectual nihilism is inexplicable here.

Has nothing to do with your delusion that I am a nihilist. It was a
figure of speech. What you expect is irrelevant. Unless of course you
are preaching.

?

You and Inez are wrong because stasis is
lack of *evolutionary* change.

Nor do I understand that.

I remember a while back your saying that evolutionary theory included
common ancestry. Do you understand that? If there is no speciation,
there is no Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism.

Not really true. You can have a lot of Darwinian processes happening
without speciation. Perhaps what you mean is that speciation is
necessary to produce a branching tree of life. I agree, but I don't
understand what point you would be making by bringing that up. Branching
-- speciation -- is necessary for diversity, but not for change.

You can have some Darwinian processes and no Darwinism as well, John.
On an evolutionary scale, and especially in context to one that
includes the concept and use of "transitionals", change is at or above
the species level. The word is simply not used exclusively in the
context of microevolutionary changes within a species.
I just don't see how you can wiggle out of that, John.  Nor why you
would want to.

The problem here is that "species" is a concept that doesn't work well
when extended over a long time. If a population has changed greatly from
its ancestors, is it a new species? Based on the popular biological
species concept, there's no way to tell.

That is your problem, and doesn't address my argument.

Present populations certainly
can't potentially interbreed with past populations, because they're all
dead.

Which is totally irrelevant in any event.

I know that "macroevolution" is often defined with reference to
species, but this is only a problem if you also mean by it major changes
in morphology. The two definitions are not talking about the same thing.
You can mean either one but not both at once.

I can only assume you are preaching to me, John. But I've given no
indication that I think "major changes" are a requirement for
speciation. You are talking to yourself here, since I haven't "meant
one or the other".

Note that you are just assuming here without seeming to notice it that
speciation and major morphological change are either the same thing or
closely linked. This is not a good assumption.

Get this out of thin air, or did you think by macroevolution I meant
"major changes". You're reeling like a drunk.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Stasis.asp
"Stasis is the situation in which evolutionary lineages persist for
long periods without change"

Yes, that's what stasis is. (Note that not even proponents of stasis
claim that molecular evolution doesn't happen during periods of stasis.
What's claimed is that not very much phenotypic evolution happens.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineage
"Lineage (evolution), group composed of species, taxa, or individuals
related by descent from a common ancestor"

I don't think that "evolutionary lineages persisting" can be
interpreted to mean all animals in a larger group, John. It means
species.
And speciation is evolutionary change, which is not microevolution.

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm not sure what
you thought I was saying, or what your attempted response is. But
speciation as usually defined is the evolution of reproductive isolation
between populations. This may or may not be accompanied by any
appreciable phenotypic change; likewise, appreciable phenotypic change
may or may not produce reproductive isolation. The two are largely
decoupled, which is what I was trying to say.

So what if you can't always see transitionals? Transitionals are
fossils between one species and another, or one group to another. Not
variations between one species, although you don't always think you
know that a fossil represents a species level change.

This is a confusion shared by many. No reason to be ashamed of it.
What's important here is transitions between morphotypes. Speciation is
not necessary. If an entire population is transformed, there is no
speciation, but the transformation happens nevertheless.

That is *not* what claims of transitionals are used for, John. And you
know it.

I get really tired of your frequent claims that I'm lying about
something.

I don't care if you get tired, John. But the above was certainly not
an accusation of lying. You'll know it when you see it from me, I
assure you.

You just don't understand what I'm talking about.

I think sometimes you don't realize what you are talking about.

Again:
speciation happens. Morphological change happens. Both happen along
lineages, but they are not closely connected. I'm still not sure of the
nature of your misunderstanding here.

Here's another of your "value" words, "not closely" connected. How
close, John? Lets use a scale from 1 to 10.
Look, I've provided you with references. You ignored one, and claimed
the other one was confused. Repeating this
preposterous claim doesn't make an argument.

Speciation
being what it is, I'm sure there are many speciations along any
particular lengthy lineage, but I'm saying that we have no reason to
believe that the speciations and the transformations are happening at
the same time.

You would have great trouble making sense of referring to
"transformations" without using the word speciation.

No I wouldn't.

I think you would, in an evolutionary context.

Yes, yes, again
and again, you can't tell that a fossil you identify as a transitional
is a separate species from the prior or latter, or even the prior or
later particular species. See the word species and speciation all
through our sentences?

Through *your* sentences. Again, "species" in paleontology is just a
convenient way of referring to morphotypes. Whether you call them
species or morphotypes has no particular relevance to the study of
evolutionary transitions.

I wonder if you really realize what you are saying. Species has no
relevance to evolutionary changes...

Is it just that the word is a topic of
discussion, or are both of us forced to use the word in relation to
"transformations" or "intermediates" or "transitionals"? You know my
answer.

I suspect your answer, but it's wrong.

If you were right and are right, you would be right, but only that I
would be wrong, not that you would be right.

Gould was confused about this too. Speciation cannot easily be
recognized in the fossil record. Only morphological change can be
recognized. Gould assumed, without evidence, that morphological change
was indicative of speciation. But this is assuming what he was trying to
demonstrate.

Everyone might be confused about it, including yourself. I doubt the
blanket statement that Gould assumed that any morphological change was
speciation, or "indicative" of speciation.

Not just any change, but a significant amount of change. But in fact
paleontologists identify species purely by morphological change. What
else do they have?

Then paleontologists would agree with him. That doesn't explain why
you said he was confused, unless you think all paleontologists are
confused. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised.

The one who is really confused here is you. Gould's confusion arose from
thinking that paleontological species are the same sort of entities as
the biological species we study in the present. Many paleontologists do
not share this confusion. Some do. Others remember that paleo species
can't be equated with modern species.

In what way? Or do you mean that Gould thought chickens were around in
the Cambrian?

This is an old argument,
but the word "transition" isn't hard to understand, even in context to
evolutionary change. One species changing over time, or better yet,
one specific population of organisms continuing to interbreed, with
morphology changing over time, isn't the spirit of what "transitional"
or "intermediate" means in evo speak.

What makes you think so?

I've been telling you what "transitional" is.

And I've been telling you that you are wrong. What makes you think so?

It's rather obvious, not some mysterious hard to understand concept
that Gould and anyone else that disagrees with you is confused about.

It's the definition of
evolution, or microevolution, take your pick. And that isn't what
"transitional" implies and means.

You understand that most people think that most macroevolution is just
microevolution piled up, right?

Nah, most people do not believe in either. You mean most evolutionists
that have a working understanding of evolutionary processes? I don't
know if "most" of them think that way or not. Personally, I think
you'd have to see a whole *** load of piling to get to now without
macroevolutionary mechanisms. Then again, what does it matter to you?

We were talking about the meanings of terms. That's a subject to which
what people think about things is central.

I doubt we need to find disagreement on macro and micro evolution in a
discussion about transitionals. You should be very aware that talk
about a fossil being a transitional isn't the object of interest in
microevolution.

What sort of macroevolutionary mechanisms do you think would be needed?

This was designed to lead the conversation away to better pasture for
you?

.