Can Evolution account for complex systems?

[eklypised]

This really isn't my best area, so I'm sure this is Evolution 101, but I have a few questions that I'm sure has been discussed on here before.

I agree evolution did some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell or any of the other complex systems that make up our being?

Evolutionist say that if a small change can occur, then over a long period of time why cant a more complicated change occur? Doesn't that go against what Darwin said about evolution, that it should be a simple process. Seems that now Evolutionist try to say simple biological systems evolved into complex systems

[phank]

This really isn't my best area, so I'm sure this is Evolution 101, but I have a few questions that I'm sure has been discussed on here before.

I'm willing to try, at least so long as you seem willing to listen.

I agree evolution did some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance.

While "small" is a relative term (a small elephant is somewhat larger than a large mouse), evolution does work in incremental steps. And those steps are necessarily "small".

But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell or any of the other complex systems that make up our being?

Why not? Nobody says that small steps cannot be cumulative, and given enough time, add up to significant changes.

Evolutionist say that if a small change can occur, then over a long period of time why cant a more complicated change occur? Doesn't that go against what Darwin said about evolution, that it should be a simple process. Seems that now Evolutionist try to say simple biological systems evolved into complex systems

Yes, and Darwin never said otherwise. You realize, I hope, that Darwin today isn't regarded as an authority about anything scientific. He is an interesting historical figure, and he had some ideas which are still regarded as largely correct, at least as modified by over 150 years of research.

But as an analogy, consider a long journey on foot. You place one foot in front of the other, and your journey has started. After an hour, you have taken a small journey. After a day, a longer journey. After a few months, you can travel thousands of miles. But the PROCESS has never changed at all - you are just placing one foot in front of the other, over and over and over. Note that even the longest journeys, taking you to the most wildly different places, still consisted of nothing but one simple mechanism.

Now, instead of taking steps, consider adding small modifications. Each one is tiny. Yet with each tiny modification, the organism is just a tiny bit more complex. Keep up this process long enough, and eventually the organism can become amazingly complex - yet, like putting one foot in front of the other, the PROCESS never changed. It was simple at first, simple all the way through, and is still simple.

[Tiggy]

This really isn't my best area, so I'm sure this is Evolution 101, but I have a few questions that I'm sure has been discussed on here before.

No worries, and welcome!

I agree evolution did some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell or any of the other complex systems that make up our being?

Yes.

Evolutionist say that if a small change can occur, then over a long period of time why cant a more complicated change occur? Doesn't that go against what Darwin said about evolution, that it should be a simple process. Seems that now Evolutionist try to say simple biological systems evolved into complex systems

The individual processes are simple and make simple changes. The long term results are cumulative can become quite complex.

Even the Great Wall of China was build one brick at a time.

- T

[shunyadragon]

This really isn't my best area, so I'm sure this is Evolution 101, but I have a few questions that I'm sure has been discussed on here before.

I agree evolution did some small changes in biological systems, such as antibiotic resistance. But can it account for more complex systems, such as the intricate molecular machinery that science has discovered in the cell or any of the other complex systems that make up our being?

Evolutionist say that if a small change can occur, then over a long period of time why cant a more complicated change occur? Doesn't that go against what Darwin said about evolution, that it should be a simple process. Seems that now Evolutionist try to say simple biological systems evolved into complex systems

In general this a common challenge from traditional theists that argue that the science of evolution cannot account for the complexity of life. There are good online sites that explain evolution well, and provide you with the basis for an education. Many threads have been devoted to this issue and successfully defended by many on this forum as well as many scientists and the references provided in support of evolution. It may be helpful to you to look around at the threads and check them out.

My recommendation is to study the science of evolution itself so that you may have a better understanding of the science involved. Virtually 99%+ of all scientists of the world in fields related to evolution support the theory without reservations, and as the education level in people in general of people increases, more people support evolution. Many polls over the years support this. It is more than coicidence that those that object to or strongly oppose evolution do so with a theist agenda.

[eklypised]

Virtually 99%+ of all scientists of the world in fields related to evolution support the theory without reservations,

And your talking about Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution?

[Tiggy]

And your talking about Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution?

While there are a few additional effects like geographic isolation that can come into play to produce macro-E (usually defined as evolution at or above the species level) the basic mechanisms of macro-E and micro-E are exactly the same. It's still small genetic changes that accumulate in a population, one generation at a time.

- T

[shunyadragon]

And your talking about Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution?

Macro-evolution, actually scientists do not make a distinction. It is simply evolution.

[phank]

While there are a few additional effects like geographic isolation that can come into play to produce macro-E (usually defined as evolution at or above the species level) the basic mechanisms of macro-E and micro-E are exactly the same. It's still small genetic changes that accumulate in a population, one generation at a time.

- T

Whoa, this is very misleading. What you are talking about is breeding isolation. Yes, sometimes breeding isolation occurs because rivers change courses and split non-aquatic breeding populations. But there are MANY sources of breeding isolation, and often these are not really well understood. It's just observed that some individuals within a population aren't breeding with others. Some populations breed together, yet breeding isolation is at 90% and rising. Nobody knows why. But it IS agreed that breeding isolation, for whatever reason, is required for speciation.

Now, the confusion of species and higher level evolution is a category error, and a serious one. The biological world consists of individuals, and always has. Over time, breeding isolation will cause two populations to become slightly different. Subsequent isolating events lead to greater differences. Eventually, for taxonomic reasons, we will arbitrarily decide that these differences are large enough to give different names to. And note that cladistics (which is supplanting Linnaean taxonomy in much of biology) does not recognize ANY category higher than the individual organism.

Otherwise, you're right. Micro and macro evolution refer only to how long it's been since the last common ancestor.

[Tiggy]

Whoa, this is very misleading. What you are talking about is breeding isolation. Yes, sometimes breeding isolation occurs because rivers change courses and split non-aquatic breeding populations. But there are MANY sources of breeding isolation, and often these are not really well understood. It's just observed that some individuals within a population aren't breeding with others. Some populations breed together, yet breeding isolation is at 90% and rising. Nobody knows why. But it IS agreed that breeding isolation, for whatever reason, is required for speciation.

It's not misleading at all. Different mechanisms for speciation - allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, sympatric - have been know and characterized for decades.

Causes of speciation

Speciation - Wiki

Now, the confusion of species and higher level evolution is a category error, and a serious one. The biological world consists of individuals, and always has. Over time, breeding isolation will cause two populations to become slightly different. Subsequent isolating events lead to greater differences. Eventually, for taxonomic reasons, we will arbitrarily decide that these differences are large enough to give different names to. And note that cladistics (which is supplanting Linnaean taxonomy in much of biology) does not recognize ANY category higher than the individual organism.

I have no idea what you're babbling about, and apparently neither do you.

Otherwise, you're right. Micro and macro evolution refer only to how long it's been since the last common ancestor.

No, the accepted scientific definitions for micro and macro evolution have nothing to do with the time since the speciation event occurred. Since you seem to be very unclear on the whole topic, maybe it's better for you to watch quietly and learn.

- T

[phank]

It's not misleading at all. Different mechanisms for speciation - allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, sympatric - have been know and characterized for decades.

You know this and I know this. But your target audience likely does not. Saying "geographic isolation that can come into play to produce macro-E" is correct, but it can SOUND like you're saying that if you apply geographic isolation, you get macro-E because isolation CAUSES (produces) it. And if your words are interpreted that way, they are misleading.

I have no idea what you're babbling about, and apparently neither do you.

If I misunderstand what you write, I don't automatically assume the problem is YOUR ignorance. I'm a bit surprised that's how you react. Evolution does not happen at "higher" levels than breeding populations. Genus, family, order, class etc. are taxonomic classifications. These are arbitrary categorizing conveniences we have superimposed onto our observations.

No, the accepted scientific definitions for micro and macro evolution have nothing to do with the time since the speciation event occurred.

Of course they do. Although maybe it would have been better to include rates of evolution, which are highly variable. But IN GENERAL, the longer the period of time since a given branch, the more subsequent branches have occurred, with the USUAL result that morphological differences become large enough to be worth classifying as different for our convenience.

Since you seem to be very unclear on the whole topic, maybe it's better for you to watch quietly and learn.

Are you practicing the Jorge method of discussion? Might I suggest you could find much better role models?

(And I might add that most creationists think of "evolution" as meaning one CURRENT species evolving into another CURRENT species. They ask why we don't see dogs evolving into cats. They don't seem to understand that evolution produces NEW organisms. And so when they speak of MACRO evolution, they are thinking of something like birds evolving into mice. Indeed, most species sufficiently different for the layman to regard as being different "kinds" had a common ancestor many many millions of years ago. )

[Tiggy]

You know this and I know this. But your target audience likely does not.

You don't have any idea what the readers here at TWeb do or do not know. I'll assume reasonable intelligence until specific cases prove otherwise, thank you.

Saying "geographic isolation that can come into play to produce macro-E" is correct, but it can SOUND like you're saying that if you apply geographic isolation, you get macro-E because isolation CAUSES (produces) it. And if your words are interpreted that way, they are misleading.

Anyone who would misinterpret the words that badly probably isn't smart enough to log into a computer.

If I misunderstand what you write, I don't automatically assume the problem is YOUR ignorance. I'm a bit surprised that's how you react.

Yet you felt confident enough to jump in and make an unnecessary 'correction'.

Evolution does not happen at "higher" levels than breeding populations.

Er...no. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency of a breeding population, but evolutionary effects and results certainly can and do happen above the population level. Things such as the co-evolution of symbiotic species, and natural selection acting between species instead of individuals.

Genus, family, order, class etc. are taxonomic classifications. These are arbitrary categorizing conveniences we have superimposed onto our observations.

So?

Of course they do. Although maybe it would have been better to include rates of evolution, which are highly variable. But IN GENERAL, the longer the period of time since a given branch, the more subsequent branches have occurred, with the USUAL result that morphological differences become large enough to be worth classifying as different for our convenience.

No, they don't. The definitions of macro-evolution and micro-evolution have nothing at all to do with the timeline for speciation, only the end result. Do you really not understand that?

Are you practicing the Jorge method of discussion? Might I suggest you could find much better role models?

Not at all, but I don't appreciate you jumping in and offering 'corrections' to my posts, especially when your 'corrections' are wrong.

If you have questions, ask next time.

- T

[phank]

You don't have any idea what the readers here at TWeb do or do not know. I'll assume reasonable intelligence until specific cases prove otherwise, thank you.

Intelligence, yes. Knowledge, not necessarily. The question itself implies lack of intimate familiarity with the subject matter.

Anyone who would misinterpret the words that badly probably isn't smart enough to log into a computer.

You may be right. But if two people say the same thing using different words, this is certain to increase the chances of communicating. Your words may do so better than mine. So far, we've had no feedback to give us a clue.

Yet you felt confident enough to jump in and make an unnecessary 'correction'.

No, as I said, you were entirely correct. I attempted clarificating by adding detail, against the possibility that your succinct statement may not have provided enough background for an OP who admitted to very little knowledge about any of this.

Er...no. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency of a breeding population, but evolutionary effects and results certainly can and do happen above the population level. Things such as the co-evolution of symbiotic species, and natural selection acting between species instead of individuals.

Yes, there are whole books about these topics. From the perspective of the individual organism, what you're citing here are environmental pressures. There is no qualitative difference between a more successful allele helping the organism run faster, and one helping the organism survive in a symbiotic relationship, or helping the individual compete against other species. Whatever increases differential reproductive success.

And yes, I understand that changes in one lineage can result in, or result from, changes in entirely different lineages. Lichens are primitive, right? If you wish to regard (for example) the adoption of a parasitic lifestyle as evolution "above" the formerly independent lifestyle, then I won't disagree. So long as we clarify our terms. But this is what discussion is for.

No, they don't. The definitions of macro-evolution and micro-evolution have nothing at all to do with the timeline for speciation, only the end result. Do you really not understand that?

Yes, of course. Technically, we're looking at degrees of morphological differences. BUT one thing I've seen creationists confuse often, is evolution and saltation - the sudden leap from one morphology to something entirely different. This leads to questions like "how could the very first X find a mate?" Insensibly small changes seem hard to grasp. So I think it's useful to point out the time required for divergence to reach the point of "obviously very different." Like saying a child is "small" and an adult is "big", the difference might be technically a matter of inches or pounds. But in Real Life, these differences occur over some period of time. And I've seen that creationists have some difficulty grasping Deep Time, or really ANY time period exceeding recorded human history.

Not at all, but I don't appreciate you jumping in and offering 'corrections' to my posts, especially when your 'corrections' are wrong.

You have a surprisingly thin skin, considering how quick you are to lash out at me and others. But in any case, I never said you were wrong, and I never said I was "correcting" you. I said that your brief assertions might be misleading, especially to someone who expressed lack of knowledge and understanding from the git-go. And I appreciate the difficulty of presenting a very large and complicate subject to a tyro with three sentences. How much information is enough? We've both probably seem occasions where posts of a certain length are BOTH not long enough to present all that must be understood, yet too long to sit through. Education is hard.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Can evolution account for complex systems?

Why don't you pray to it and find out?

[Roy]

Anyone who would misinterpret the words that badly probably isn't smart enough to log into a computer.

How long have you been here, again?

Alternatively:

Micro$oft Windows has a lot to answer for.

Roy

[shunyadragon]

Can evolution account for complex systems?

Why don't you pray to it and find out?