Creationists have reason to doubt the theory based on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection published in 1930. It relies on the assumption that a gene (allele) may have a fitness of its own being a unit of selection. Historically this way of thinking has also influenced our view of egoism as the most important force in evolution. On the other hand, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, then Gaussian adaptation will perhaps give a more reliable view of evolution. Creationists have reason to doubt the theory based on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection published in 1930. It relies on the assumption that a gene (allele) may have a fitness of its own being a unit of selection. Historically this way of thinking has also influenced our view of egoism as the most important force in evolution; see for instance Hamilton about kin selection, 1963, or Dawkins about the selfish gene, 1976 in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_adaptation#References
On the other hand, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, then
Gaussian adaptation will perhaps give a more reliable view of evolution (see the blog “Gaussian adaptation as a model of evolution”).
In modern terminology (see Wikipedia) Fisher’s theorem has been stated as:
“The rate of increase in the mean fitness of any organism at any time ascribable to natural selection acting through changes in gene frequencies is exactly equal to its genic variance in fitness at that time”. (A.W.F. Edwards, 1994).
A proof as given by Maynard Smith, 1998, shows the theorem to be formally correct. Its formal validity may even be extended to the mean fitness and variance of individual fitness or the fitness of digits in real numbers representing the quantitative traits.
But, if the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes, I am afraid there might be a risk that the theory becomes nonsense, and that this is not very well known among biologists.
A drawback is that it does not tell us the increase in mean fitness (see my blog “The definition of fitness of a DNA- or signal message”) from the offspring in one generation to the offspring in the next (which would be expected), but only from offspring to parents in the same generation. Another drawback is that the variance is a genic variance in fitness and not a variance in phenotypes. Therefore, the structure of a phenotypic landscape – which is of considerable importance to a possible increase in mean fitness – can’t be considered. So, it can’t tell us anything about what happens in phenotypic space.
The image shows two different cases (upper and lower) of individual selection, where the green points with fitness = 1 – between the two lines – will be selected, while the red points outside with fitness = 0 will not. The centre of gravity, m, of the offspring is heavy black and ditto of the parents and offspring in the new generation, m* (according to the Hardy-Weinberg law), is heavy red.
http://picasaweb.google.com/gregor744/GA_figures02?authkey=Gv1sRgCNLYgpOK2ZH_sQE#5392019823332991266
Because the fraction of green feasible points is the same in both cases, Fisher’s theorem states that the increase in mean fitness is equal in both upper and lower case. But the phenotypic variance (not considered by Fisher) in the horizontal direction is larger in the lower case, causing m* to considerably move away from the point of intersection of the lines. Thus, if the lines are pushed towards each other (due to arms races between different species), the risk of getting stuck decreases. This represents a considerable increase in mean fitness (assuming phenotypic variances almost constant). Because this gives room for more phenotypic disorder/entropy/diversity, we may expect diversity to increase according to the entropy law, provided that the mutation is sufficiently high.
So, Fisher’s theorem, the Hardy-Weinberg law or the entropy law does not prove that evolution maximizes mean fitness. On the other hand, Gaussian adaptation obeying the Hardy-Weinberg and entropy laws may perhaps serve as a complement to the classical theory, because it states that evolution may maximize two important collective parameters, namely mean fitness and diversity in parallel (at least with respect to all Gaussian distributed quantitative traits). This may hopefully show that egoism is not the only important force driving evolution, because any trait beneficial to the collective may evolve by natural selection of individuals.
Gkm
my girl crazy, man!
Nontheistic intelligent design is still a supernatural theory. The supernatural designer is by definition outside of nature. Otherwise we end up with a self-designing natural system.
Hmmm. I wonder how a self-designing natural system might work. Perhaps a chemistry that permits evolution would be a good idea :)
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Hello Friend,
“Regarding your comment: “”But the simulation still shows the power of the principle of evolution”â€
Yes, it shows exactly that: the power of an intelligently designed mathematical evolution and NOTHING MORE.â€
In 1981 my colleague and I published a paper “stochastic optimization is system design†based on he theorem of Gaussian adaptation (GA). At this time GA managed to increase the manufacturing yield from about 5 to 95% in a 76-dimensional space. This was far beyond our own intellectual capacity. So, if you mean that GA is a representative of Intelligent Design (ID, but 1981 we knew nothing about ID), I may perhaps agree with you. As has been shown, the natural random evolution may make use of the GA-theorem to some extent, so, in this sense natural evolution may also be as a random process suitable for ID.
The natural evolution, which you seem to deny in a way I will be unable to understand, is far more complex and efficient and may even solve combinatory problems such as the travelling salesman problem as earlier shown. The limitation with GA is that it is a parametric algorithm, not very good at combinatory problems.
You also wrote: “In my view, because of the profound differences between the two “settings” the results can in no way be seen as supporting evolution OF LIFE ON EARTH, which is a totally different matter: no designer, no algorithm, no direction, no calculating machine, no problem to solve, etc.
Still, I am pretty sure that our designers used some pretty good “evolutionary algorithms” to design lifeforms…â€
“No problem to solveâ€, there are very many difficult problems to solve in climbing a phenotypic high-dimensional landscape.
“No calculating machineâ€, yes, but the machinery is driven by energy from the sun, using the universal laws of nature – including the entropy law – and the rules of genetic variation such as crossover, inversion etc. as a random number generator.
“No directionâ€, oh yes! It follows the direction of an increasing mean fitness and diversity, so, it is goal seeking.
“No algorithmâ€. I don’t agree, evolution constitutes a very sophisticated genetic algorithm.
“No designerâ€. Since evolution is a very creative designer by itself, capable of creating huge amounts of information in the art of survival, you are wrong also in this case.
So, sorry to say, this is 100% misunderstanding!
Gkm
Hello Gkm,
the power of the supposed mechanism of macro-evolution should be very big, of course. I don’t think I underestimate it, because I grew up with evolution as “religion”. I really know a lot about it and fully understand the principles. This is just to say that I am not a person who just believes in something different without knowing the science behind the established theories. I exactly understand the Raelian Vision BECAUSE I know the darwinian story…
Regarding your comment: “But the simulation still shows the power of the principle of evolution”
Yes, it shows exactly that: the power of an intelligently designed mathematical evolution and NOTHING MORE. In my view, because of the profound differences between the two “settings” the results can in no way be seen as supporting evolution OF LIFE ON EARTH, which is a totally different matter: no designer, no algorithm, no direction, no calculating machine, no problem to solve, etc.
Still, I am pretty sure that our designers used some pretty good “evolutionary algorithms” to design lifeforms… ;) And we will do the same VERY soon!!! :)
I still invite you to go read this new theory for yourself. What do you think? Is this theory worth reading a book of about 100 pages containing the message of our designers? What if you find that it’s true? You have nothing to loose, and it’s totally free (as e-book)!
Love
Friend
To Friend: “On the other hand, macro-evolution (compared to micro-evolution) cannot be scientifically proven because of the timespans involved.â€
I love such debates, but I think you underrate the power of evolution, which I have no reason to forsake, thus far. For instance, you may look at my blog about macro-evolution.
“Regarding problem-solving algorithms by “evolution”. There is a designer to the algorithm and to the machine that calculates the algorithm.â€
You are right that there is a designer for the algorithm and a machine for calculation. But the simulation still shows the power of the principle of evolution; the cyclic repetition of random variation and selection. And this is a very strong indicium.
When it comes to the efficiency. For instance, suppose that evolution replaces one generation with one million individuals in one year by testing all individuals in parallel, then, the same procedure will take one million years in my PC, testing one individual at a time. But I still find the simulation in my PC very efficient.
So, I think we need no help from another planet, thus far. In my opinion, evolution has the capacity to do the job.
Gkm
Hello,
thank you for your interesting comments.
Please let me introduce the third possibility:
non-theistic intelligent design.
For further information, please see http://www.rael.org and download the free e-book. I reccommend not relying on second hand opinions about this movement, nor on any pre-judjments you might be tempted to have… ;) It just completes the array of existing possible explanations with this science-based option. This one can even be proven, as we as a humanity are building life in the laboratory already! Macro-evolution on the other hand cannot be proven because of the time-spans involved.
Love
Friend
To Friend, you wrote: “Now THIS is important: they themselves have been created by other beings (answer to Gkm by the way). They have NOT evolved by evolution or such. This is an eternal cylce in the infinite universe, where there is no beginning to and no end, like buddhist scriptures say for example. Being limited themselves (birth, death), humans tend to ask questions that contain limits, which is natural:)”
I have no reason to believe this, which can never be scientifically proved. I believe in evolution because its practicality, and because its efficiency has been supported theoreically and by “simulated evolution” to solve extremely dificult technical problems. So, there is no reason to distrust its capabiliy because of its randomness. The entropy law is one of the cornerstones of creativity and imagination.
The possible alternative theory of evolution called gaussian adaptation also supports the peace on earth, Rael has no monopoly. But this may be another blog.
I don’t demand you to look at such a simulation, but if you do, you may see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem#Example_letting_the_inversion_operator_find_a_good_solution
Gkm
Hello Gadfly,
thank you for your comments.
Joseph Smith, like Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus and severl other people all had contact with our Intelligent Creators. They all had different tasks according to their time and culture.
You are absolutely right in that I am a fundamentalist raelian. Our philosophy relies on some principles: peace, love and absolute non-violence. I am fundamentalist about these that :)
In my view, scientist can have a skeptical approach and this is fine. But one could also have a neutral one. Why? Because otherwise one “paints” what one sees with the “scepticism”. Why be skeptical when you can have a balanced neutral approach that gives you a clear vision?
As for calling this an absurdity, well… Great that it is for you! The earth not being the center of the universe was the same for some people in other times…
Love
Friend
To Friend: I agree with Fred Bortz, but looked at your web site: “â€The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural ‘God’. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally “in their image” — what one can call “scientific creationism.”â€â€
If there is no God and no evolution, who created those scientifically advanced people? It seems to me as if you moved the same problem of creation to some another planet, out of reach for our science.
Gkm
So I presume “Friend” would dispute the divinity of the Book of Mormon as dictated to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni — if I have by details straight, but accepts the “scientific” or “atheistic” scripture received by Claude Vorilhon from the Elohim.
I guess that makes him or her a fundamentalist Raelian.
Scientists, even those who practice a religion, prefer the skeptical approach. That is the scripture of Gadfly-ism.
One bite is enough for this absurdity, but I couldn’t resist taking it.
This bite of realism brought to you by “Gadfly.”
Hello,
thank you for your great comments.
To Fred:
You say:
“If you talk about the origin of life in general terms, not just Earth life, then there is no need for your “3rd possibility.””
That’s exactly why I say that it is important to read the book for yourself and not rely on second hand opinions, even if it is wikipedia. I try to be brief: christianity was considered a “heretic dangerous cult” in the time of the romans. Same applies now to the Raelian Movement.
Truth is as follows: the people who created us scientifically in laboratory, a process discussed in the bible (“let’s make men in our image…”), are called Elohim (meaning “Humans” in their own language”). This word was mistranslated as “God”, the biggest mistranslation of all times. The bible is the oldest atheist book!
Now THIS is important: they themselves have been created by other beings (answer to Gkm by the way). They have NOT evolved by evolution or such. This is an eternal cylce in the infinite universe, where there is no beginning to and no end, like buddhist scriptures say for example. Being limited themselves (birth, death), humans tend to ask questions that contain limits, which is natural:)
To understand this whole thing, it could be helpful to understand the concept of infinity:
We say something exists if it complies to TWO conditions at the same time:
1) It is composed by something
2) It is part of something
It is then easy to extrapolate that each single subatomic particle in your skin cell of your nose contains infinite universes. Fact is that, infinity extends in all directions, not only to the big scale. Time flow velocity is proportional to the corresponding level. While at our scale one millisecond passes, at a lover scale millions of humanities are created and destroyed.
The main message the Raelian Movement brings is this one: Infinity and all it’s implications.
Please consider reading the book to make up your OWN mind on this matter, not the one of wikipedia or the romans ;)
Love
Friend
[Preface: Wikipedia states: “Raëlism or Raëlian Church is a UFO religion founded by a purported contactee named Claude Vorilhon. The group is secular, hedonistic, and supports human cloning. It believes that God and souls do not exist; instead it believes that extraterrestrials who created humanity sparked the founding of major religions.”]
Dear “Friend,”
I’ll play your game, but only this once. I’m sure others would like to join in the tweaking later.
Since the Raëlian Movement is generally considered a cult that gives science a bad name (such as with the phony human clone some time ago), I’m not disposed to visit your website. Please explain here how your belief in alien creation is “intelligent design” unless you limit “life” to an earthly phenomenon.
I discuss life on other worlds in my latest book for young readers, Astrobiology. Even in the unlikely event that life on Earth was established by alien beings who arrived here on a spacecraft, those beings would have arisen through a process of evolution on their world. If you talk about the origin of life in general terms, not just Earth life, then there is no need for your “3rd possibility.”
I’ve cleared the Rod Serling Memorial Landing Strip for you, so come on in!
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Thank you for your comment. Please allow me to make a precision: the 3rd possibility that I mentioned has aboslutely NOTHING to do with “supernatural” things or creators. Therefore it is NOT a supernatural theory. That’s exactly why I recommended to read the book for yourself, so you can make up your own mind and not rely on 2nd hand opinions or pre-judgements. I’m sure, you will get the picture then. The 3rd possibility introduced by the Raelian Movement is a 100% materialistic, non-theistic ID theory. No obscurantism, no esotersim or similar involved at all!
The “religion” of the Raelian Movement is science! :)
Love
Friend
To Gkm:
thanks for your great comment. I understand your position. Please let me point to the fact that from the 3 theories we are juggling, maybe ONLY the “Intelligent Design by Humans like us” can be proven. Why? Because we are creating life in the laboratory right NOW (Craig Venter is on it). What are we going to do in 200 years from no? Create intelligent beings? On other planets?
On the other hand, macro-evolution (compared to micro-evolution) cannot be scientifically proven because of the timespans involved.
Regarding problem-solving algorithms by “evolution”. There is a designer to the algorithm and to the machine that calculates the algorithm.
What the 3rd possibility introduced by the Raelian Movemnt says is very simple:
We have been created by people like us (“in our image”). No gods, no para-dimensional beings or such.
Our Intelligent Designers had contact with some people during human history (the prophets like Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, etc.).
Now is the time where humans can understand instead of being forced to blindly believe (Apocalypse = greek, revelation [NOT “End of the world”]).
The last prophet (Rael) was given a message that everyone can read for free downloading it from this website: http://www.rael.org
Make up your own mind! By puzzling together all the pieces, you can discover that this is the theory that explains all strange things (missing link, irreducable complexity, etc., including the “God” theory).
Just read it for yourself, don’t rely on your own pre-opinion ;)
Personally, I find your comment very respectful. I find that this 3rd possibility at least deserves the respect to be discussed in a respectful manner and not exlcluded as absurdity without even giving any argument. Thank you for that!
Finally, please let me state that the aim of the Raelian Movement is not to convice, but only to inform. So thank you for your different opinion.
Love
Friend