Revisiting some thoughts on evolution

Had some time this afternoon and wanted to revisit some thoughts on evolution - eventually I'd like to incrementally put down a whole bunch of different ideas that relate to why it is such an inflammatory subject and why it really doesn't need to be. 

As an aside, after writing the evolution post earlier I heard a very good, concise of reproductive fitness: fitness is the ability to pass on your genes to offspring that can pass on their genes. The example is that producing a mule doesn't contribute to reproductive fitness because mules don't reproduce. 

The thing that I'm really thinking about, though, is about defining evolution as a change in a population's allele frequencies over time. I'll get in trouble with some evolutionary biologists for cutting it down that far since there is a whole field that is devoted to understanding how the generational change in a population's allele frequencies can result in speciation, or the formation of new species. But making a distinction between evolution proper and speciation is an important thing for evolution's apologists to do (and, in my opinion, something that many seem unwilling to do at least in part for the reasons I stated in my earlier post on the matter) because: a) you can't argue that a change in allele frequencies happens over time since we can see it; b) it refocuses the debate about evolution onto evolutions core principles rather than its predictions. 

So for evolution to take place, you need two have multiple alleles for a given gene, you need to have an external pressure that causes having a particular allele to not be neutral (i.e. there is a benefit or cost to having the allele), and you need to have reproduction. If we use eye color, let's say that there are only two alleles for eye color - blue and brown. Let's also say that Debbie Gibson has blue eyes, and so all of the boys in the 1980s grew up with crushes on her and decided that they would only marry women who have blue eyes. All of the sudden, blue eyed girls all get to reproduce while some brown eyed girls don't get to. There will be more blue-eye alleles in the next generation, and presumably all of those blue-eyed children will be able to reproduce. Evolution just happened. Of course, the same thing could happen the following generation with Debbie Gibson's daughter, who has brown eyes, and the pendulum could swing back towards an increase in brown-eyed alleles the following generation. The most interesting changes will be permanent shifts in allele frequencies, and these will usually result from continuous or very strong pressures. 

The problem, of course, is that a change in the blue-eye color allele in the human population is less interesting than gamma-radiation from a special effects show at a Debbie Gibson concert causing everyone at the show to produce children that are actually a new species of Homo (called Homo gibsonii, this new species is actually born with eyes that are shaped like Ray-Bans and skin that looks like a jean jacket). The likelihood that a child will be born as a different species than its parent is extremely small (i doubt it could ever happen but never say never, right?), and so the question that arises is: how can a new species evolve? A more problematic, but related, question people like to ask is, "Why don't we ever see chimp-human hybrids if evolution is an ongoing process?" The former question is entirely appropriate but the latter is fundamentally flawed (another time...). At least one way that new species evolve is by isolation of individuals of that species by external barriers - such as geographic, social, or reproduction barriers between individuals in a population.

Can you see people who believe that the earth and all earth life was created by God being less resistant to teaching evolution if it focused on this?

As an aside, I thought it would be informative to check on a few definitions for evolution in online dictionaries. I was really surprised. Dictionary.com hit it on the head, but webster's is a bit off the mark, focusing not on the definition, but on the implications of the definition. I'm quick to add that I'm not aware of any evidence that contradicts Webster's definitions, but I think that defining evolution by its predictions and implications rather than by its underlying principles is flawed and causes a lot of unnecessary contention.

Dictionary.com :  change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and genetic drift.

Webster's: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Future points: 

"can" vs. "do" pass on genes

speciation vs. evolution

geographical isolation

undirectional evolution

long term evolutionary vision

a problematic species definition

possible speciation mechanisms (egg and sperm mutations)

alleles arise by mutation

define "allele", "locus", etc

Perfect Planning

Mosiah 3:13 And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.

Since I was born after Christ came on the Earth I never thought of this idea before, but it is powerful to me that Christ’s atonement was so eternal that God’s children could receive a remission of their sins and rejoice with exceedingly great joy even before Christ came on the Earth. It also evidences that God who gave us the plan is perfect and planned for us perfectly.

Fitness - Reproductive or Religious?

I just read this verse in The Book of Mosiah:

Mosiah 1:4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

It made me think of my earlier discussion of evolution (which didn't go anywhere - surprise!): the goal of evolutionary fitness is not to reproduce better – it is to produce offspring that can reproduce better. 

I like the idea that the goal of the gospel isn't to teach the gospel to our children and help them find testimonies – it is to help our children to teach the gospel to their children and help them help their children find testimonies. 

This verse gives a brilliant and succinct illustration of a fundamental principle that applies to multiple parts of our development.

Defining Evolution

Had an interesting conversation with my dad last night that made me think it might be useful if i tried to distill some ideas here. Its a jumble of ideas that are all related to the subject of evolution and the controversy that academics get into with the public - one of these debates is about if evolution should be taught in school, but it isnt the only one. My position is that most people don't understand what evolution is (and academics seem to not be interested in educating them about evolution per se) and that most evolutionary biologists have very hostile feelings towards intelligent design advocates and the rest of the religious world by extension (and that hostility is enflamed by political preferences). Neither of these is a good recipe for reasoned exchange. Some of these thoughts will tie directly to those issues, and some more indirectly.

I think that one of the biggest problems is a desire (by both the academics and the lay) for a sound byte definition of evolution. Survival of the fittest is a commonly used phrase, but it puts an improper focus on survival, lifespan, and appealing traits (i'm thinking something like, for humans, athleticism and muscular build) since fitness in our vernacular is different than the specific definition assigned to the word by biologists. In biology, fitness roughly means the success of an organism at passing on its genes. Further, the word survival applies to the forthcoming generation, not the current one. Evolution is barely interested in the survival of the current generation once they have reproduced, and is almost exclusively focused on the ability of the new generation to reach the age of reproduction and reproduce. Therefore, to be consistent with the vernacular, "survival of the fittest" could be rephrased as, "Propagation of the reproducers" or simply "Reproducers reproduce". But to be more to the point we should define the word, "allele."

Genes are made up of variants called alleles. A common example is eye color - i may have blue eyes and you may have brown eyes, and this results from differences in our genetic makup. Briefly, an allele is a different variety of any given gene - it will be located at the same location in the chromosome, but the sequence of the DNA for each allele will vary, usually slightly. These small changes cause small variations in the characteristics that each gene is responsible for. For example, eye color varies because of different alleles - the allele responsible for blue eyes, brown eyes, etc - but we all still have color to our eyes. It is usually a subtle, not a major change. These alleles are really what evolution is interested in.

Armed with the knowledge that alleles are slight variants of gene sequence for any given gene, and that alleles may cause changes in the characteristics of the individuals who have those alleles in their DNA, defining evolution is simple: "Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time." the key concepts are CHANGE, FREQUENCY, POPULATION, and TIME.

A Reservoir of Living Water

I was speaking with someone about this talk on Sunday, and thought I'd post it, along with my favorite part:

A Reservoir of Living Water, by Elder David A. Bednar, February 4, 2007 CES Fireside

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4040-1,00.html

He talks about studying the scriptures in three different ways - finding connections, patterns, and themes. When he talks about themes he introduces an idea that impressed itself upon me:

Themes are overarching, recurring, and unifying qualities or ideas, like essential threads woven throughout a text. Generally, scriptural themes are broader and more comprehensive than patterns or connections. In fact, themes provide the background and context for understanding connections and patterns. The process of searching for and identifying scriptural themes leads us to the fundamental doctrines and principles of salvation—to the eternal truths that invite the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost (see 1 John 5:6).

He needed to understand something better, a clearly defined idea: gathering

In preparation for a recent speaking assignment, I was impressed to talk about the spirit and purposes of gathering. I had been studying and pondering Elder Russell M. Nelson's recent conference message on the principle of gathering (see Conference Report, Sept.–Oct. 2006, 83–87; or Ensign, Nov. 2006, 79–82), and the topic was perfectly suited to the nature of and setting for my assignment (see The Spirit and Purposes of Gathering [address delivered at a BYU–Idaho devotional, Oct. 31, 2006]).

He went to the scriptures to learn about gathering and adopted the following approach:

I recognized that I had much to learn from the scriptures about gathering. So I identified and made copies of every scripture in the standard works that included any form of the wordgather. I next read each scripture, looking for connections, patterns, and themes. It is important to note that I did not start my reading with a preconceived set of things for which I was looking. I prayed for the assistance of the Holy Ghost and simply started reading.

As I reviewed the scriptures about gathering, I marked verses with similar phrases or points of emphasis, using a colored pencil. By the time I had read all of the scriptures, some of the verses were marked in red, some were marked in green, and some were marked in other colors.

Now, here comes the part that may make you laugh. I next used my scissors to cut out the scriptures I had copied and sorted them into piles by color. The process produced a large pile of scriptures marked with red, a large pile of scriptures marked with green, and so forth. I then sorted the scriptures within each large pile into smaller piles. As a first grader I must have really liked cutting with scissors and putting things into piles!

Here is what he learned:

The results of this process taught me a great deal about the principle of gathering. For example, I learned from examining my large piles that the scriptures describe at least three key aspects of gathering: the purposes of gathering, the types and places of gathering, and the blessings of gathering.

I noted that some of the primary purposes of gathering are to worship (see Mosiah 18:25), to receive counsel and instruction (see Mosiah 18:7), to build up the Church (see D&C 101:63–64), and to provide defense and protection (see D&C 115:6). In studying about the types and places of gathering, I discovered that we are gathered into eternal families (seeMosiah 2:5), into the restored Church (see D&C 101:64–65), into stakes of Zion (see D&C 109:59), into holy temples (see Alma 26:5–6), and into two great centers: old Jerusalem (see Ether 13:11) and the city of Zion or New Jerusalem (see D&C 42:9; Articles of Faith 1:10). I was grateful to learn that edification (see Ephesians 4:12–13), preservation (seeMoses 7:61), and strength (see D&C 82:14) are some of the blessings of gathering.

Gathering is just an example, but this approach works with even less paper waste and a wider variety of colors if done digitally. This evening I tried giving each topic its own "style" in microsoft word so that the sections could be rapidly sorted out afterwards, which has always been complicated for me. Another way to do it would be to use excel and assign each scripture a word label that can be used for sorting. He points out that he doesn't care whether we adopt this approach, but I have found that it helps me to see things in scriptures that I wouldn't otherwise see, (for example, "gather" might not be the idea I center on when reading the verse in context, even though it might contain an important message about gathering that is secondary to the primary message of the verse - this is a great way to capitalize on secondary and tertiary messages of particular passages).

Hilarious

I love this kind of humor. Or is it...

And, as popularized during my undergraduate years: "Whoever brings up the Nazis first, loses."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023132215883398.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Instructions and Responsibilities

Our stake president taught the doctrine posted below this past week. I was instructed by it and wanted the quotes and found that they were in this month's issue of the Ensign. I've linked the original talk and the summary of the talk in this month's issue at the bottom. They come from a general conference address by then Elder Boyd K. Packer

… Fathers are responsible to preside over their families.

If my boy needs counseling, bishop, it should be my responsibility first, and yours second.

If my boy needs recreation, bishop, I should provide it first, and you second.

If my boy needs correction, that should be my responsibility first, and yours second.

If I am failing as a father, help me first, and my children second.

Do not be too quick to take over from me the job of raising my children.

Do not be too quick to counsel them and solve all of the problems. Get me involved. It is my ministry.

He continues without intervening text, but the focus shifts:

We live in a day when the adversary stresses on every hand the philosophy of instant gratification. We seem to demand instant everything, including instant solutions to our problems. …

It was meant to be that life would be a challenge. To suffer some anxiety, some depression, some disappointment, even some failure is normal.

Teach our members that if they have a good, miserable day once in a while, or several in a row, to stand steady and face them. Things will straighten out.

There is great purpose in our struggle in life.

The principle of self-reliance or personal independence is fundamental to the happy life.

None of it is new doctrine, but I was edified by it. A good reminder both to my intentions to fulfill my responsibilities at home and assist others.

Original

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Solving Emotional Problems in the Lord's Own Way
http://lds.org/ldsorg/lds_servlet/EmailArticleProcess?action=view&cmlId=602311&locale=0&emId=211577421

Summary

LDS.org - Liahona Article - Solving Emotional Problems in the Lord's Own Way
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/lds_servlet/EmailArticleProcess?action=view&cmlId=602303&locale=0&emId=46041601