Even among educated people, misconceptions about evolution are widespread. Smeder Reisfeld presents some of them and presents the correct facts
Smeder Reisfeld | Galileo Magazine
One of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution is the recognition that the forces driving the changes over time are natural forces, and are not the result of a directed hand with any purpose
150 years have passed since the publication of "The Origin of Species", and surprisingly, ignorance about evolution is still widespread. The reason for this may lie in the emotional difficulty that evolution evokes because it deals with life itself, with us, and not with an abstract and alienated universe (people do not tend to argue passionately about the existence of gravity or the theory of continental drift), and there may be other reasons as well. In any case, misconceptions are widespread even among educated people, who do not define themselves as religious or believers. In this article I will present some of them and try to enlighten them.
"Evolution is a random process"
Some formulate the claim regarding the randomness of evolution also as a question: how is it possible that complex creatures like us were created in a random process?
But evolution is not a random process. The change of species over time is the result of two opposing processes, only one of which - the creation of diversity - is random. The second process - natural selection - excels precisely in legality and order, and it is the interplay between them that creates the wonderful diversity of the world of living creatures.
Darwin insisted that in every population of creatures there is diversity, meaning that every trait has a variety of manifestations. A population of giraffes, for example, includes individuals that differ from each other in the length of the neck, the thickness of the fur and the speed of walking; An anemone population shows variation in traits such as stem length, flower color, and so on.
Darwin stated that variation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the existence of evolution, but he did not know how to explain the origin of variation. Scientists who came after him and created what is now known as "neo-Darwinism" pointed to several mechanisms based on randomness as being responsible for this. The first arises from the laws of heredity: offspring differ from their parents and from each other because a random sperm fertilizes a random egg blindly, without having any idea whether the creature to be born should inherit the skin color of the father and the width of the nose of the mother, or vice versa. The second mechanism is the creation of mutations, which also appear randomly in the genome, without taking into account what is needed for the creature carrying them for its survival.
If so, the variation is the result of random processes, but not so natural selection, which acts on it according to a clear and fixed law - adaptation to the environment. The more suitable individuals survive and the less suitable become extinct, so that complex creatures are not created in a random process, but in stages, each of which is determined in light of its suitability to the environment.
Here is a passage, which demonstrates the play between randomness and order, from the books "Darwin in Ayalon Darom":
"One anthropologist arrived in a remote village in Italy, and was amazed to discover that all the women in the village suffered from completely capricious menstrual cycles. While most women in the world have fairly regular periods, and only a minority suffer from irregularities, in this village there was not even one woman who was gifted with a period whose length could be predicted. In other words, there was no memory of the reason why the process, which is usually fixed, is called a 'cycle'. Every month the bleeding appeared in the woman - every woman - at a different time. Once three weeks after the previous one, once two weeks later, then after a month. How is such chaos possible? The researcher's sleep wandered.
Tags
Evolution Man Ancestor Animals Eyebrows Humor Animals Nature Curious Children Science Snakes Fears Philosophy Charles Darwin Laughter Monkeys Joy
Another person could see the menstrual madness as a curse or punishment imposed on the village by a vengeful goddess or sorcerer. But the anthropologist was not inclined to such explanations. After a strenuous investigation, he discovered that for many generations, the accepted and only method in the village to prevent unwanted pregnancy was the 'safe days method'. This method is safe, of course, only when the cycle is very regular and the ovulation date is predictable. And so it happened that over the years it was precisely the women whose periods were pro-capricious and often multiplied and gave birth to offspring, bequeathing the trait of irregularity to their daughters. Women with regular periods, on the other hand, gave birth to only a few children (planned, usually), and so, for hundreds of years when the inhabitants of the small village married only among themselves, a society of women who all had 'crazy' periods was formed.
Naama finished reading the story and felt a great relief. Here is the solution, and order has been restored. Here it became clear that the chaos is the most consistent and orderly thing in the village. There were blue and brown eyed, long limbed and short, but all of them, without exception, were characterized by a crazy cycle. It calmed her down. There was order in the chaos, and the explanation for it was simple and logical: those women with the unpredictable periods were the most suitable for reproduction. Because of this, they gave birth to the most offspring, and over time the characteristic of irregularity took over the village.
Naama wrote in her notebook: "This is the nicest example I've come across of Darwin's natural selection."
"Evolution is progressing towards more complex creatures"
The correct fact is this: as we advance in time, we find more developed beings, who have more complex systems. The earliest signs found indicate that the first life was extremely simple - bacteria - and it began about 3.5 billion years ago, since the first multicellular organisms appeared (a billion years ago), fish (500 million years), amphibians (360 million years ), reptiles (300 million years) and mammals (200 million years) including man (2.5 million years for the appearance of the homo type and 200 thousand years for the appearance of the intelligent man as he appears today). If so, the gradual development, evolution, is a fact that is based on observations. On the other hand, the statement that evolution is a directional process that marches towards progress is an interpretation, which indicates a wrong conception of evolution.
One of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution is the recognition that the forces driving the changes over time are natural forces, and are not the result of a purposeful hand. Natural selection assumes adaptation to specific changes that occur in the environment, and since the changes in the environment are not directed toward a specific goal, the evolution that responds to them cannot be directed either. Today the one who adapts to a cold climate survives, and tomorrow the one who adapts to the warming climate; Today the environment chooses the dark ones and tomorrow it will choose the bright ones.
But even a random process (in terms of its directionality) can lead to a certain necessary result, in this case - the appearance of complex creatures. To demonstrate this idea, Stephen J. Gould, a scientist and talented writer of popular science, used the image of the drunk. The drunk leaves the pub onto the wide sidewalk in front of him, to his left is the wall of the pub and to his right is a sidewalk, with a deep sewage canal running through it. The drunk begins to walk or rather "zigzag": swaying sometimes towards the pub and sometimes towards the curb (for the sake of simplicity we will only look at his lateral movement), his walking is random and has neither direction nor purpose. Where, Gold asks, will the drunk end up over time? And answers: it will roll in the sewer. For sure. And that's what will happen every time he leaves the pub drunk, if we give him enough time.
Seemingly, there is directionality here (which some will rush to interpret as a transcendental intention). Apparently, the man is always moving towards the canal with the aim of reaching it. But the explanation is different: the man moves away from the wall to his left. The drunk's walk is random, indeed (there is an equal chance of him walking left or right), but he cannot go as far to the left as he can go to the right, because of the wall of the pub that blocks him from the left. Therefore, given a long enough time, the drunk will inevitably end up in the sewer (since the canal is deep, he will get "stuck" in it).
Necessity creates the appearance of directionality, but complex beings do not exist because evolution has a vision or goal toward which it is progressing. Its random conduct (in this respect it has no directionality) inevitably leads to the creation of complex creatures, because it is blocked "on its left side" by the minimal complexity required of creatures. Living things cannot be simpler than a certain degree (for example, a single cell), but their complexity has no upper limit. Complexity is created as a result of the accumulation of changes, each of which gives its owner a survival advantage. The more time evolution had to operate, the more simple systems had opportunities to be perfected - the random changes had time to occur, and natural selection had a chance to pick out the most suitable ones.
By the way, the fact that complexity is necessary does not mean that if we were to repeat the whole process again, i.e. "run" the world back 3.5 billion years and start again, we would get jellyfish, sharks, anemones and humans again. On the contrary. For sure we would have received other creatures, but without a doubt we would have received very complex creatures this time as well.
Tomorrow, in the second part of the article: who really was the first to come up with the theory of evolution, does the strong and powerful survive, and what is the connection between sympathy and compassion and evolution?
On the same topic on the science website:
33 תגובות
What do you mean, what will I say, you are a company on a level
An interesting article that I came across quite by accident, then I saw that the author was the one who wrote the great book Darwin in Ayalon South, which I also came across by accident. This proves that randomness is definitely significant in our lives, doesn't it?
I understand that a sparrow has retreated.
Sparrow, you are not answering my question at all. First of all, because I didn't ask any question, I pointed to the fact that the religious contradict themselves by on the one hand opposing evolution and on the other hand according to their belief that all the genetic variation between humans occurred within 4000 years.
And according to you, it seems that you do not understand what is written and what is claimed. What is written there is about what is told in creation. And I'm talking about Noah and the flood in general, which has nothing to do with what is written there.
Rah:
There are many more examples of development "in the opposite direction".
In addition to birds that lost their ability to fly, there are also bats, rats and deep-sea fish that lost their ability to see, there are snakes that, after evolving from fish while turning their fins into legs, lost their legs, there are mammals that lost their gills and developed lungs and legs and then lost their legs and returned to living in the sea as Whales and dolphins, there are flying insects that settled on a windswept island and lost their wings which, instead of benefiting their owners, caused them to drift into the sea and more and more.
Yehuda:
Regarding examples of the formation of new species - read for example here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
Regarding the change in the number of chromosomes - even among humans this sometimes happens when a person with Down syndrome is born (and no - people with Down syndrome are not infertile).
Regarding the matter of randomness - the author did not mean the term "randomness" according to any mathematical definition, but rather the meaning that the opponents of evolution try to attribute to it, namely - absolute randomness - such that no logic controls it - such that they rely on in their claims that "it is impossible for a random process to lead to a creature as elaborate as the batter "T". Your treatment of this or that mathematical definition is not relevant to our case nor to the author's intention.
By the way - it is interesting to see that in that you adopt the extreme (and incorrect) interpretation of the words of Chava Yablonka and Marion Lamb and claim that there is some other factor here (a factor that they clearly deny in their book and lectures) that directs evolution, you actually claim (as mentioned, mistakenly) that it is even less random than it claims Neo-Darwinism.
As I mentioned before - the authors of the book "Evolution in Four Dimensions" opened the door to this kind of misunderstanding themselves thanks to a number of irresponsible wordings whose entire purpose is to create a sensation.
Eliahu,
I'm not sure I understood what will not happen, but if you mean that it is not certain that a 6 will come out in 1000 dice rolls, for example, I can reassure you, the chance of such an event is
6.58X10^-80 which is zero for all intents and purposes.
It is certainly not a process whose outcome is random. But if you insist, then I will tell you that the result of the process as recorded on the results page is always either 0 or 6.
And yet, just like evolution, it is not a random process.
Sparrow,
As Doss, I wonder if you have already deciphered the Act of Genesis, which our sages said that the first ten verses carry a hidden meaning. You are actually saying that God is working on us and all reality is an illusion. If so, what is told in the Torah has no meaning since we cannot live according to its chronology and it does not fit our lives. Your reward is your loss. In fact, there is more direct evidence that the universe is older than 6000. We see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away, which means it took hundreds of thousands of light years for light to reach us. The distance, by the way, was calculated using the rules of geometry and you don't intend to contradict them (I hope). There are two possible solutions to the "problem". The first is to grasp the midrashim that say that our world is not the first. See the interpretation of the Maharal. The second (my favorite) is to understand that the focus of the Torah is in the field of morality and that the stories of creation must be understood that way.
Igal,
Everything you said is fine and dandy, but I'm not interested in the little teeth that mostly have different alleles in the same gene. I am interested in the significant changes, i.e. changing the number of chromosomes. No matter how many genetic drifts there may be, we still increase the same number of chromosomes and therefore we have not changed the species. Changing the number of chromosomes is a non-continuous phenomenon, and therefore must have a mechanism that makes it possible.
pleasantness,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
The results are indeed random because you are not guaranteed that they will occur at all.
Eliahu,
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. I will try again.
First, please ignore the possibility of the cube breaking - the cube in my process is completely unbreakable - at least made of titanium
My goal is to contradict your claim that "any process based on a random parameter is called a random process (mathematical definition)".
I propose a process based on a random parameter, but the results of the entire process are not completely random:
You take a die (only one, the kind that never breaks), and roll it over and over again, a large number of times, regardless of the result of the previous roll.
The registration of the casting results is carried out according to the following rule:
If it comes out 6, register. Any other result - not recorded.
I claim that the results registration page, which is the result of the entire process, will not contain random results, and therefore the entire process is not random at all.
The implication is that, although the formation of mutations is essentially a random process, the general evolutionary process is not a random process at all - environmental constraints dictate its direction.
There is no need to assume a higher power, or any other intelligent being, that determines the direction of the process
And more (to Eliyahu): natural selection does not work only after it has destroyed all other individuals, but it works all the time. Furthermore, since initially it is only minor changes, the mutation will spread in the normal population through the mating of the individuals who carry it with those who do not carry it. If (or when) it is successful (in terms of survival) it will spread a lot. And if not, it will remain at the same statistical level as the appearance of other traits (or genes). When the time comes (if there will be one), when the conditions in which the said mutation will have an advantage mature, it will of course spread quickly in the population as a result of its advantage. Note, there is no black and white here: a beneficial mutation appears in more individuals in the population than if it were not beneficial, not least harmful. Therefore, there is no basis for your claim that all that remains is to check the likelihood of its occurrence.
In addition, your interpretation that says that my father claimed that "selection somehow increases the chances of the formation of good mutations" is incorrect: my father claimed that "things that are apparently of zero probability are given a very high probability" and as I understand it, the meaning is that the entire mechanism (random mutations and directional natural selection) - for survival) greatly increases the probability that at the end of the process more good mutations will be left than bad ones.
And another thing, since it is not pure mathematics, one random parameter does not make the entire process random, especially since it is not a mathematical equation.
And finally (maybe...), no radical changes were observed, since the processes leading to radical changes take a long time, beyond the time when humans make observations. However, the world is full of examples of radical changes: the proximity of the elephant to the rock hare, the dog to the wolf, the birds to the dinosaurs and... the human to the chimpanzee...
Sparrow bird, your argument (**seems**) is a circular argument. It is possible to tell you that all the writings and all matters of religious belief were constructed so that they **seem** to be correct.
Eliahu,
The example given by Noam is indeed inaccurate, but your reference to it is also inaccurate: it is true that there are cases where the die breaks, but not every case where you did not get a 6 the die breaks! In fact, most cases are like this: mutations that are ineffective at that moment do not necessarily kill and often have no effect at all. Only given a change in the conditions, such as the appearance of another mutation that in itself does not change much but is useful in addition to the previous one or that the external conditions have changed, there is an expression of mutations that previously had no effect. Hence, after 1000 rolls you will still have a lot of dice left.
Father, your prediction is a guess, not a mathematical prediction. I even think that in a million years we won't be here (maybe another "great death"?)
One point, I will deviate from my custom of not dealing with religious matters here, and I will answer your question.
The Gemara says (Tract Chulin, page S.) "Every act in Genesis, in their stature, they were created in their mind, they were created in their character, as it is said (Genesis 4000), and the heavens and the earth and all their host are able not to harm their host but their character." The meaning of things: you are right in your basic claim - such an evolution is **never** possible in XNUMX years, and no one claims this. The Torah teaches us that these things were created so that they **appear** to be millions (or tens or hundreds of millions or billions, depending on the subject). And it is said in other places, "Anyone who wants to make a mistake will come and make a mistake."
Eliyahu, varieties eventually become separate species after enough generations of isolation - genetic drift in different directions is an example of this, so the difference between varieties and species is more quantitative than qualitative. Of course, in the absence of isolation - strains will not separate and we see this beautifully in man, and also in his best friend.
As for ancestors eating unripe, I believe that eventually the modern synthesis will accept more methods of inheritance of traits, especially if they are limited in scope compared to the main way of inheritance. This does not rule out the theory of evolution. It is correct no matter what the exact method of inheritance is, what's more Darwin didn't even know what the exact method was, he hadn't read Mendel's research that was published at the time in German in remote journals. If he had tried his experiments a little more as he did on the example pigeons, he would have arrived at something similar.
First of all I will respond to the ad hominem that crept in here...
thanking. I am religious (alas! my blog betrayed me) and even a convert (alas doubly so!). But I'm not a rabbi and I'm not an "apostate" in the theory of evolution. As science lovers, you have long had to distinguish between ultra-Orthodox, Shasniks and national religious people. I did not repent because of professional slanderers. They are usually ultra-Orthodox, and as such they are hostile to science and every discovery that has been renewed in the last 200 years, or try to prove that everything is already written in the Torah and the Sages. (while ignoring the opinion of the great thinkers from the Middle Ages until now).
But if you ask any Hardel and DL they will tell you that science in general and evolution in particular do not contradict the Torah of Israel (see Rabbi Kook there, Valivovich there and there). Since I did not include God or any other non-scientific concept, why do you include them? The problem arises when you try to derive value arguments from science or scientific claims from the Torah, and then that's another story...
If it wasn't clear, then I criticized the discussed article only and not the actual theory of evolution. The evolution happened and now we only have to ask how. I am simply arguing that the neo-Darwinist paradigm is wrong.
[By the way, someone who behaves religiously is actually a 'point' according to her reaction to Raul who dared to disagree about Gold...]
Now for the factual claims:
my father.
Evolution is a combination of successful mutation (which does not kill the individual!) and natural selection acting on it. Note, the selection works only after the mutation has occurred by the extinction of the other individuals, so the claim that the selection somehow increases the chances of good mutations being formed is incorrect. The article, which presents the neo-Davinist version, claims that the mutations are random. So the whole process is like this. And now it only remains to check the chance that a random mutation will be useful. The examples you gave are not relevant because they show varieties and not new species. The human equivalent is that a Jew will not marry a Christian because of differences in customs and foods. Radical changes (such as changes in the number of chromosomes) have not been observed so far, because these are extreme mutations that kill the individual (in humans this is called Down syndrome and in nature the baby would not survive a year!) or at best leave him or his offspring sterile or unable to reproduce with their kind.
'point'.
Although I responded to ad hominem in the first section, here I really must recommend that you find out the difference between religious, ultra-Orthodox, creationist, Jewish and Christian. (Did I forget someone?) It wouldn't hurt to get to know the sociological environment in which we live. It improves our chances of survival 😉
[And if you are already there, take a look at the wiki and learn something about the thoughts of Rambam and Rabbi Kook].
Genetic variation is caused by environmental conditions and isolation. It can happen in a few generations. There are no different species here, but "varieties" within the same species (see my response to my father)
Noam.
I probably didn't understand, so it would be useful to explain, because the parable you present is not accurate. In reality you will only be allowed to throw the die again if you got a 6 on your previous throw. If you didn't get a 6 then the die is broken! And you can't go on. You will start with 1,000 cubes and within 4 turns you will be left with only one!
As I mentioned above, my main argument is against neo-Darwinism or the "selfish gene" theory. I think that the mutations are not so random to begin with. I am in the middle of a book: "Evolution in 4 dimensions". Mechanisms are described there that, when there is selective pressure, they induce mutations precisely in the "correct" DNA regions. Read the following article:
http://www.odyssey.org.il/articles2.html "Fathers ate unripe.."
Eliahu,
You wrote: "Any process based on a random parameter is called a random process (mathematical definition)"
What a logical error... Here is one example of many:
We will describe a process in which a die is thrown a large number of times (a random process), but the result of the throw is recorded only when a 6 comes out.
Do you think the listing on the results page will show, after a large number of throws, random results?
I hope the meaning is clear to you.. If not, I'm ready to explain.
Elijah, I never understood the religious people who argue against evolution.
After all, the religious Jews or Christians believe that all of humanity evolved from Noah and the flood about 4000 years ago.
The religious ZAs basically claim that all the genetic diversity that exists today in humanity (and you can add the diversity in all animals according to what is told in the flood) is the result of 4000 years, and this is an extremely rapid evolution that no scientist would agree to.
So how do the religious contradict themselves and argue against evolution that scientists in general claim was much, much slower?
That's how it is, ignorance blinds the eyes. When there is no self-criticism, everything is true and everything is possible.
Raul, the fact that you don't know who it is explains a lot of things in the things you say.
Elijah, the non-random part completely changes the rules of the picture and things that seem to have zero probability get a very high probability because of the element of natural selection. As for the experiments with the genetic drifts, interestingly, perhaps these are experiments that you yourself conducted because in experiments in nature there is drift - for example, new species of salmon, the same species of flies that switched to a diet of apples instead of hawthorn fruits in the USA and lost reproductive contact with the parent species, and more.
It may not be possible to predict with XNUMX percent what we will look like in a million years, because of the random element, but due to natural selection and the fact that man changes the environment and adapts it to his needs, the chances are that we will look similar to today, if we do not become extinct first.
The batterers like to wave at the low probability, but natural selection increases the chance.
If a certain creature happens to have a new trait that in the current state does not change its chances of reproduction, it will pass it on to future generations, and the rate of gene spread in the population will be random, but say one day an element that was not important, and there may also be an extreme case where the environment changes and a trait that was previously an advantage became a disadvantage and vice versa. For example, the color of the moths in England became important, before the industrial revolution it was such that on oak trees the black moths stood out and were eaten, while the white ones survived. After that, due to the soot, the situation was reversed - now the blacks were camouflaged and the whites stood out and were devoured. Such a thing changed the population instantly.
point:
I don't even know who it is
The article is misleading.
The claim that evolution is random is a correct claim (a blind watchmaker remembers...) and the article did not refute it at all. Although natural selection is not random and is a negative feedback that leverages harmful mutations, the mutations are considered random. Any process based on a random parameter is called a random process (mathematical definition). And the view is that it is impossible to predict what we will look like in a million years.
As far as I know, most of the claims concern the zero probability that beneficial and significant mutations will occur. So far the experiments have shown genetic embolisms that did not create new species and have a different number of chromosomes. A mutation that will change the number of chromosomes will not produce fertile offspring in sexual reproduction (for example, the mule).
Raoul, are you writing against Jay Gold? Just ridiculous.
Raoul,
You didn't understand the parable or the simile.
The parable explains why the existence of a certain direction of development (from low complexity to high complexity) can be caused by random processes together with certain constraints (the wall on the left side) and not precisely by the direction from the outside.
The parable explains ** the direction of development ** and not the survival or non-survival of such and such creatures
The parable of the drunkard is a really bad example
And indeed reinforces the stupid question if humans came from monkeys then why are there monkeys
After all, there is a wall on its left side, so with time [and there was plenty of time] everyone will fall into the ditch
It is completely clear
Good article on evolution. For some reason I have not heard of Smeder's book "Darwin in Ayalon South" until today. It has not been mentioned on this site so far. When I read the article, I didn't understand who Naama was. Only after I googled the name of the book, I found that Naama is the heroine of the book.
Very interesting article. Looking forward to the sequel.
Only if it is technically possible to make the section that the client tells to be different from the rest of the article, maybe make it italic or a different font that would be clear?
And somehow tags got to the middle of the article:
“Tags
Evolution Man Ancestor Animals Eyebrows Humor Animals Nature Curious Children Science Snakes Fears Philosophy Charles Darwin Laughter Monkeys Joy"
Point, nice point
According to response 1
The knowledge of evolution will change evolution,
remember i said (sorry i wrote)
post Scriptum
This is my sentence (which came to me in a long and convoluted evolutionary process, random and planned)
Rach
I think that Gold's drunkenness model refers to evolution in general and not to specific creatures, that is to say, as time passes, there will be more complex creatures together with the simple creatures, the point is that the number of possible simple creatures in general is smaller than the number of complex creatures in general because complexity has no upper threshold and therefore the tendency is To the complexity, I think it's a matter of probability, at least that's how I understood it
Rah, there is a war of survival that requires the creators to be more sophisticated in order to survive.
Interesting article. Regarding Gold's drunkard model - according to this model we would expect to see many cases of complexity changing to simplicity, but I do not know of an evolutionary example in which a complex creature evolved into a simple production. Multicellular to unicellular for example. The only examples that come to mind and it is not at all clear if they represent such a case are birds that have lost the ability to fly like penguins and ostriches (?).
A very interesting article raises a question in me, does the fact that humans have become so complex that they can adapt to the environment artificially and not biologically mean that they will no longer undergo evolution?
I think that the example with the anthropologist is not appropriate, it introduces elements that are not related to natural selection, and overall confuses the reader who does not know how to distinguish the treatment from the main.
(Old science readers already know that this article does not innovate anything, it is enough to read a number of answers that Michael gave in the past to all kinds of troublemakers to understand more clearly the subject of evolution)
And in general regarding the subject of evolution, in my opinion it is not enough to describe the evolution of species that took place on Earth, because the universe itself has physical laws and very defined starting conditions that invite our existence almost inevitably (if we were to go back 10 billion years we would get the same result, nature is deterministic in this sense ), and it requires an explanation, therefore the idea of the evolution of universes must be added to all this. And only then does the whole thing get a certain mental stability.