Nice question. I have not done real work on evolution research and am not familiar with the modelling of evolution but we can both speculate.
One point affecting the temporal change in a population is that there is much variation, both temporal and spatial.
Spatial variation means that natural selection may drive evolution towards different directions at different sites, or have a stabilizing effect in much of the range but lead to influential changes in a subpopulation.
Temporal variation means that what is adaptive at one moment may become a disadvantage after some years if the external conditions change.
One influential point is variation in the strength of natural selection. If the environmental conditions stay within a relatively narrow range, natural selection may be stabilizing (working against deviating individuals) or have a relatively mild effect on the population. When the external conditions change radically, such as a very long drought, unusually cold period, or hypoxic conditions in water, most individuals may die. The few surviving individuals are the founders of the future population and, depending on which type of individuals survive, there may happen visible changes in the characteristics of the individuals.
The variation makes mathematical modelling of evolution difficult because the model should include both spatial and temporal variation in the direction and quality of natural selection. To get an accurate model, there should be information of how the external conditions have changed spatially and temporally. Lack of detailed data is a reason why mathematical modelling of evolution has not been common. There are probably basic models that give a crude understanding of what happens in particular conditions but not so much models that would try to model the fate of real populations through evolution.
My impression is that these and other factors, such as the extent of phenotypic flexibility*, makes it almost impossible to make accurate mathematical models of long-term changes within a species. That is why evolution research relies more on general rules of thumb and patterns in genetic data than mathematical models. Even with crude rules associated with genetic data it is possible to make predictions about the long-term development, what kind of living and extinct species we should find if the crude predictions are true. I am not an expert of fossils, so I cannot tell much about the accuracy of the predictions.
*Phenotypic plasticity refers to some of the changes in an organism’s behavior, morphology and physiology in response to a unique environment, without causing heritable changes in the offspring.
I am running out of ways to say the same thing. And you have still not understood what i am driving at.
it does not matter why a thunderstorm forms in terms of was it God or not.
All that matters is that you recognise the patterns so that you can identify the results.
So a weather forecaster will not say
God will send a thunderstorm to New York (even if that is what he believes)
He will say
Due to the build up of clouds and the Low pressure area there will be thunderstorms in New York
He has neither denied God’s influence or confirmed it. and it does not affect what people see or understand. All that matters is that there will be a thunderstorm in New York He has done his job. He has not promoted God, but he has not denied him either.
When you talk about Evolution you are denying God’s influence, even though you actually believe otherwise. People do not see “God made the changes” they see “The changes are due to random deviations”. You (think you) know there is no such thing as random, but TOE is based on the existence of random. If you are talking science (and claiming VFB) you are saying that random does exist, because that is what science says. So you are denyng your belief that God controls the changes, instead you are saying that it is random. That is what people read, or hear.
They do not hear you say, science says it is random but I know that it is controlled by God.
They hear you say
Science says it is random and it is controlled by Natural Selection (not God)
That is not what any scientist means by the word “random”. In the context, “random” means that Chaos Theory applies and there are no detectable patterns in individual events. There may by patterns when an enormous number of them are observed, but any one is like rolling a die: so dependent on initial conditions as to be impossible to predict. “Random” in any technical usage does not mean “ultimately unguided” because that is a philosophical statement that science cannot make.
Variation is ubiquitous in Nature; we can step outside of biology and notice that variety is found everywhere, as for example, the countless number of organic molecules can be seen as the variation in combinations of C, H, O (with a smattering of S, N, and some metallic). Yet science can examine these - I am not advocating models as essential, as these are mostly simplifications that are devised by scientists to deal with specific questions.
But to get back to ToE; I have been astonished at the bravado displayed by some, who are otherwise sober scientists, at making the outrageous claims for Darwinian and neo-Darwinian notions. I for one am inclined to emphasize the clear inadequacies of ToE to counter such exaggerations. If, as is the case, biology is too complex for treatment, why not say so and get on with the job, instead of indulging in propaganda as the selfish-gene guy has done, or as some TE-ists.
(A clarification that will have been obvious to most.)…
It does not matter why a life form forms in terms of was it God or not, scientifically, because that is a theological and philosophical ‘why’, not a scientific one. Science does not deal in terms of God.
But you are behaivng like a schizophrenic whereby what you say as one does not impinge or have any meaning to the other. There is a term for this dichotomy but I am forbidden by the Moderators of this forum to state it.
No, but nor does it mean “divine-uncontrolled”, again because that is a determination that science cannot make. Chaotic events would be among the easiest ways for God to intervene in this world without being detected, because it is impossible to measure the starting values precisely enough to tell their final outputs, but an omniscient God could determine/know all of the final outcomes.
If God is controlling all that there is nothing left for us mere mortals to do. Any notion of free will or self-determination goes out the window… We are little better than automatons following a preset program of movements.
