Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#21 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 15 April 2008 - 05:27 AM

I was hoping creationists would be commenting on this subject of using "divine selection" in place of "natural selection". I'll try to be patient.

One apparent drawback of this approach is that it may seem to detract from the "scientific" aspect of creation science. It may also give the appearance of "division" or controversy among us.

I feel justified in pressing on in spite of these trivial issues. We have the truth on our side, and the God of Truth. Even in the eyes of men, we may gain by clearly defining our position. Are we not ready for any who would compare "natural selection" to "divine selection"?

Allow me to reference the various creatures living in caves. Natural selection provides a post hoc explanation: they "evolved" blindness in a dark environment. I can also explain this: a Loving God may have foreseen that blind creatures would be born, and provided an suitable place for them to live. (I say "may have" since I don't claim to know God's thoughts).

Post hoc is a game anyone can play. Drawing attention to this has the potential to cripple people's faith in natural selection; for it is practically always employed post hoc, and most who accept it don't seem to bat an eye.

I think it's also important that folks understand the message of love. That's what divine selection proclaims, and this message is subverted any time Christians allow that creatures are subject to "survival of the fittest".



Are you simply saying that you would rather use the wording of "Divine" rather than "Natrual" ?

I don't see how natrual Selection goes against Genesis. I do see how Darwin's Natrual Selection is an obvious Fairy Tale, but not Natrual Selection in it's root form.

:)

#22 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 April 2008 - 05:53 AM

Thanks for responding. I see we disagree, and it's good to understand why.
2.) Even watered down, there will still be no way to test natural selection. The lack of recognition (noise of one type or another) can't be predicted. There will always be "lucky" individuals and a given creature can equally be called "lucky" or "chosen".

View Post


I agree with you NS can’t be tested. I again believe it is no more than a conservation mechanism that removes lethal mutations from a population. In regards to the cave example and blindness, I very much doubt natural selection did this. I believe it is much more likely an adaptive mutation, something informed evolutionists adamantly oppose - not for scientific reasons, but because adaptive directed mutations strongly imply design!

Fred

#23 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 April 2008 - 07:16 PM

Are you simply saying that you would rather use the wording of "Divine" rather than "Natrual" ?

I don't see how natrual Selection goes against Genesis. I do see how Darwin's Natrual Selection is an obvious Fairy Tale, but not Natrual Selection in it's root form.

:)

View Post

Not Genesis so much, but (from my first post) "Bible-believing Christians should carefully consider whether their definition of 'natural selection' is in compliance with Matt. 10: 29 -31 and Luke 12: 6-7. Jesus says the Father watches out for even sparrows."

http://quod.lib.umic...kjv/browse.html
is an online Bible, if you want to look these up.

I think "Divine selection" does a better job conveying full compliance with scripture, leaving less room for any uncertainties. "Natural" is a more vague and potentially subjective term.

#24 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 16 April 2008 - 05:21 AM

Not Genesis so much, but (from my first post) "Bible-believing Christians should carefully consider whether their definition of 'natural selection' is in compliance with Matt. 10: 29 -31 and Luke 12: 6-7. Jesus says the Father watches out for even sparrows."

http://quod.lib.umic...kjv/browse.html
is an online Bible, if you want to look these up.

I think "Divine selection" does a better job conveying full compliance with scripture, leaving less room for any uncertainties. "Natural" is a more vague and potentially subjective term.

View Post


Ok I see what your point is.

IMO, God who created everything, also created nature. Also William Blyth (A Bible Believing Christian) was writing about Natrual Selection 25 years or more before Darwin showed up.

I base my beliefs of Natrual Selection off of the Christian who founded it.

Eitherway, I think it's only fair to battle against Evolutionists with what they consider their biggest fighting terms.

Natrual Selection quite simply, Does Not explain Evolution, only what we see in nature today.

I think your right, Christians today are not ready for the use of Divine Selection, but I also don't see the need. :)

#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 17 April 2008 - 10:00 PM

Ok I see what your point is.

IMO, God who created everything, also created nature. Also William Blyth (A Bible Believing Christian) was writing about Natrual Selection 25 years or more before Darwin showed up.

I base my beliefs of Natrual Selection off of the Christian who founded it.

Eitherway, I think it's only fair to battle against Evolutionists with what they consider their biggest fighting terms.

Natrual Selection quite simply, Does Not explain Evolution, only what we see in nature today.

I think your right, Christians today are not ready for the use of Divine Selection, but I also don't see the need.  :)

View Post

I think it takes time for the idea to sink in. This thing came to me about a month ago, and I blew it off myself initially. But even today I realized a new merit.

The survival of the Hebrews & the present nation of Israel - natural or divine selection?

Christians may be a little cautious, but I don't think I'll be alone on this for too long.

Saying "God did it" is just acknowledging the truth. Nobody should be intimidated by this charge. Contrary to the hype, this doesn't prevent investigation. People are naturally curious about how God did many things.

In this case, it's pretty clear to me that God hasn't relied very heavily on natural selection. Otherwise, it should have been easy to observe. William Blyth did no harm with his hypothesis; it seeks to investigate how things interact, and that's a good goal. But we now know it has little practical value, if any.

That's not all. The concept's been hijacked & deified. That's the fact. Genies don't go easily back into bottles. The false god isn't going to return to mortal status - no point trying to bring that about. Even if one could, the resulting hypothesis wouldn't be worth the effort.

#26 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2008 - 05:21 AM

I think it takes time for the idea to sink in. This thing came to me about a month ago, and I blew it off myself initially. But even today I realized a new merit.

The survival of the Hebrews & the present nation of Israel - natural or divine selection?

Christians may be a little cautious, but I don't think I'll be alone on this for too long.

Saying "God did it" is just acknowledging the truth. Nobody should be intimidated by this charge. Contrary to the hype, this doesn't prevent investigation. People are naturally curious about how God did many things.

In this case, it's pretty clear to me that God hasn't relied very heavily on natural selection. Otherwise, it should have been easy to observe. William Blyth did no harm with his hypothesis; it seeks to investigate how things interact, and that's a good goal. But we now know it has little practical value, if any.

That's not all. The concept's been hijacked & deified. That's the fact. Genies don't go easily back into bottles. The false god isn't going to return to mortal status - no point trying to bring that about. Even if one could, the resulting hypothesis wouldn't be worth the effort.

View Post

i would say that its not natural or divine selection Israel was created by the UN. Men.

#27 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 21 April 2008 - 03:58 AM

Sorry for the late reply, I have been away.

Now Hans, I see your holding true to this "You don't make the Rules".

Why is this your punchline, when the same can be applied to the ToE.


You are requesting predictions about the future. If we were into fortune-telling that would be the thing to ask for, but we are not into fortune-telling. When we talk about the predictions of a scientific theory, it has nothing to do with time. Predictions, in this context, refer to observations that are consistent with the theory. Those are the rules, and those are the ones you don't get to change.

You don't get to call it science, since there is NO observational Scientific Method to back it up.


I'm sorry, but yes I do. Observations do back up the ToE.

What I see is very clear. Secular scientists are very reluctant to make predictions about the future b/c the future is FALSIFIABLE, and they would make a fool of themselves by doing so.


The past is even more falsifiable. If there were observations about the past that did not back up ToE, there would be real trouble.

All the scientific evidence in the WORLD points towards one thing. The way we as humans are now, are the way we will always be. Animals and Humans will always be two different beings, and from what we've learned in the past 6000 years is that, there is nothing that says we haven't always been this way. Humans and Animals have always been two different beings.


No.

Darwins Natrual Selection is a want and a need. It's not science. It was his own god as well as it is now thousands of other persons god. Just as though a Christian can think of No God; Darwanian, Atheistic, Evolutionists can't think of a God. Which to me says the ToE is religion in itself. Believing and having faith in the unseen past.


No.

It seems you are equivocating evolution and natural selection. Evolution is basically defined as “descent with modification.”


Yes.

This can mean that given time, chance, and natural laws, bacteria can evolve into baseball players. But this type of change requires an increase in genetic information.


Yes.

Humans contain information on how to make brains, eyes, and legs (to name a few) that doesn’t exist in bacteria. This information-gaining form of evolution has never been observed or confirmed through scientific observation.


Yes it has.

Natural selection is properly defined as a process whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective of their genetic makeup) survive better in a given environment or under a given selective pressure. Those with certain characteristics live, and those without them diminish in number or die. Natural selection was described by a creationist, Edward Blyth, some 25 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. Natural selection has been observed and confirmed through scientific observation.


Correct. And yes, before Darwin, everyone was a creationist.

Many evolutionists believe that mutation and natural selection are mechanisms which increase genetic information. However, operational science (science done in the here and now) has shown that mutations and natural selection decrease or degrade genetic information—the changes are moving in the wrong direction!


No. You cannot apply information theory to genetics in that way.

Hans

#28 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 21 April 2008 - 01:56 PM

I'm sorry, but yes I do. Observations do back up the ToE.


The past is even more falsifiable. If there were observations about the past that did not back up ToE, there would be real trouble.


That's what were asking. What are the observations ?

You go on to say:

QUOTE

All the scientific evidence in the WORLD points towards one thing. The way we as humans are now, are the way we will always be. Animals and Humans will always be two different beings, and from what we've learned in the past 6000 years is that, there is nothing that says we haven't always been this way. Humans and Animals have always been two different beings.

No.


QUOTE

Darwins Natrual Selection is a want and a need. It's not science. It was his own god as well as it is now thousands of other persons god. Just as though a Christian can think of No God; Darwanian, Atheistic, Evolutionists can't think of a God. Which to me says the ToE is religion in itself. Believing and having faith in the unseen past.

No.


You see in your world of no ultimate standard of truth, by simply answering no, is truth enough for you.

You don't have to provide anything contrary, you can simply deny it, and say why and you'll be right.

I live in a World of Ultimate Standard, morality and Truth, therefore I can determine what is truth and what is not truth. What is real and what is not real, by comparing them to the Ultimate Standard.

If we live in a world where truth is whatever you want to be true, how can one claim what is and isn't true ? If truth is simply a chemical reaction in our minds, who are you to say that your chemical reaction or any more valid than mine ?

Who's to say that a man's moral sense of Rape being ok for reproduction is wrong, if he is merely acting off of his Moral Code of Survival Instincts ?

#29 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 22 April 2008 - 12:32 AM

That's what were asking. What are the observations ?


That was not what was asked. Predictions of future developments were required.

You see in your world of no ultimate standard of truth, by simply answering no, is truth enough for you.


Not quite. The simple "No" is slightly provocative, I admit, however some questions or claims require so long explanations that I can't give them here.

You don't have to provide anything contrary, you can simply deny it, and say why and you'll be right.


That is not true. In fact it is quite a bit of the opposite: There is a comprehensive scientific body of knowledge backing the theory of evolution, and some people here seem to feel they can just deny it and expect me (and others) to make long explanations.

I live in a World of Ultimate Standard, morality and Truth, therefore I can determine what is truth and what is not truth. What is real and what is not real, by comparing them to the Ultimate Standard.


Yes you do, but your Ultimate Standard is based on your belief. There are many bodies of writing claiming to be the Ultimate Standard, and you have chosen to believe in one. How can I know you have chosen the right one? How can I know if any of them is right?

If we live in a world where truth is whatever you want to be true, how can one claim what is and isn't true ? If truth is simply a chemical reaction in our minds, who are you to say that your chemical reaction or any more valid than mine ?


There is an Ultimate Standard in the world. It is called reality. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we cannot read about it in any book. We have to try to read reality itself. My chemical reaction is likely better than yours if it fits our observation of reality better.


Who's to say that a man's moral sense of Rape being ok for reproduction is wrong, if he is merely acting off of his Moral Code of Survival Instincts ?


That is an interesting philosophical question. However, do note that whatever you or I feel about what should be the answer will have no effect on what is reality.

Hans

#30 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:11 AM

I submit this example as a demonstration of the extent to which natural selection has been deified. I'll add a touch of bold

Combining their efforts, the researchers used hair, horns and tissue to reconstitute the evolution of the genetic diversity of the mouflon population from 1958 to 2003. Through the contribution of Jean-Louis Chapuis, Denis Réale had access to samples from populations living on the Islands between 1988 and 1996. For the missing years, the researchers appealed to the hunters who wintered there. “We got the missing DNA samples from hunting trophies and managed to go all the way back to the son of the founders,” said Denis Réale with a smile. “We were even able to obtain genetic material from the population of origin from the Vincennes Zoo. “We took the DNA from these samples, and looked at specific genetic sites,“ explained Renaud Kaeuffer. “We expected that the genetic diversity of this population of mouflons would be very homogeneous, and that this genetic diversity would decline over time. Instead, we observed the opposite.”

The researchers attribute this increase in genetic variety to natural selection, as the timeframe was too short for this diversity to be attributable to genetic mutation, and the Islands are much too isolated to have undergone migrations. “This variety can be explained by elimination, over the generations, of individuals with low genetic diversity. In small isolated populations, related individuals are likely to reproduce amongst themselves, resulting in inbreeding and homozygotes.

(This article also demonstrates that some professional evolutionists don't have a clue about recombination, and the complaints against Noah taking pairs of animals may not need to be taken too seriously.)

For purposes of my divine selection argument, I just wanted to point out how much magic gets attributed to natural selection. Further points: many evolutionists assume it functions when no pressure is present, and many think it can perform truncation selection. I grant that experts exist who deal with these things routinely & get them right, but I think it'd be better not to pay lip service to this god at all.

#31 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:55 AM

With all respect, if you interpret this as deifiying natural selection or holding it to be magic, I suggest you haven't quite understood the text.

I also find your line of argumentation a little strange: If the increased genetic diversity in this isolated population is NOT due to natural selection, what do you suggest is the reason for it? Where do you suggest this, *gasp* increase in information comes from?

And no matter where it comes from, how can this finding be interpreted as anything but supporting evolution?

Hans

#32 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:51 AM

With all respect, if you interpret this as deifiying natural selection or holding it to be magic, I suggest you haven't quite understood the text.

I also find your line of argumentation a little strange: If the increased genetic diversity in this isolated population is NOT due to natural selection, what do you suggest is the reason for it? Where do you suggest this, *gasp* increase in information comes from?

And no matter where it comes from, how can this finding be interpreted as anything but supporting evolution?

Hans

View Post

Hallo MRC_Hans. You may disregard the deification subject. For purposes of discussing the advantages of adopting the term divine selection, it is relevant to those of us who view natural selection as an unscientific mirage.

Now then, we all know natural selection can only subtract. It cannot add anything. That's Darwinism. Mutation is supposed to supply variation. What they don't teach is that recombination runs circles around mutation when it comes to providing variety.

When they do teach recombination at all, they teach about the sperm combining with the egg - and that's it. There's another automatic gene shuffling mechanism involved with sperm & egg production. I'll try to find some good links about this. Please be a little patient & feel free to research on your own.

I expect you'll doubt my word. Consider brothers. Mutations can only account for a couple of differences between any two brothers, and they probably don't even show. The differences you see among brothers are nearly all the result of recombination. Now think of the differences you've surely seen. Verify the latest mutation rate estimates. You'll see what I'm talking about.

It's really an exciting subject. Most of what's popularly attributed to mutation is actually the result of recombination. Probably could use its own thread if we really wanted to get deep into it.

Also, it's not an increase in information. The information was already present in the progenitors, but not expressed - it can almost never be fully expressed in an individual. A bunch of it's in/controlled by non-coding DNA, and the work on this mystery's just getting started. The only way all the info gets expressed is when the reserve is bred out over time. I think the Chihuhua (sp?) dogs are an example, but I'm not sure I remember correctly. Anyhow, the extra reserve information can eventually be bred out and depleted in some circumstances. Domestic purebreds all have drastically decreased variation, but I think most still retain at least a little. I'm a little fuzzy on the details. Sorry if I'm getting anything wrong.

Recombination's also what stopped Lysenko cold. He actually had some success, but only for a single generation - then his plants went right back like they were before. It's really tough to read up on this, as so much is written by people who attribute all or some of what happens to mutation. Here's a sure-fire clue: if it's repeatable on demand, it's not mutation. Mutations are random and rare.

Oh! Almost forgot. Found the sister article.

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:15 PM

Google mining has yielded some recombination links.

http://www.bio-medic..._recombination/

http://www.bio-medic...inition/gamete/

http://www.scienceda...cally_modified/

http://mmbr.asm.org/...3/2/349#Summary

http://www.emc.maric...ookmeiosis.html

http://www.nature.co...l/7594238a.html
Other interesting things I found: mDNA maybe isn't exclusively from mothers
http://www.pnas.org/...ull/93/24/13859

"Wall Shedding Turns On Genes"
http://www.plantphys.../full/139/2/561

It's a little hard to find information that's not too technical for casual purposes. Sorry I didn't do better.

#34 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 23 April 2008 - 02:22 AM

Hallo MRC_Hans. You may disregard the deification subject. For purposes of discussing the advantages of adopting the term divine selection, it is relevant to those of us who view natural selection as an unscientific mirage.


Well, I certainly don't understand what you mean. Above you call natural selection a mirage, below you discuss the very practical properties of this mirage. But, never mind.

Now then, we all know natural selection can only subtract. It cannot add anything. That's Darwinism.


If there wasn't some source of variation, then it could only subtract. But there is a source of variation.


Mutation is supposed to supply variation. What they don't teach is that recombination runs circles around mutation when it comes to providing variety.


Maybe so, but how is that an argument against evolution? The more sources there exist for variation, the more probably is evolution. Lately, they seem to be reviving Lamarck.

I expect you'll doubt my word. Consider brothers. Mutations can only account for a couple of differences between any two brothers, and they probably don't even show.


That certainly depends on what the mutations are, but generally, that is probably correct.

The differences you see among brothers are nearly all the result of recombination. Now think of the differences you've surely seen. Verify the latest mutation rate estimates. You'll see what I'm talking about.


Yes, and? So, now we have both mutation and recombination as a source of variation for natural selection to work on. Makes life even easier for evolution.

Also, it's not an increase in information. The information was already present in the progenitors, but not expressed - it can almost never be fully expressed in an individual.


At some point I think we need a thread to discuss this information theory issue: It is a misunderstanding to view DNA in terms of information theory.

A bunch of it's in/controlled by non-coding DNA, and the work on this mystery's just getting started. The only way all the info gets expressed is when the reserve is bred out over time. I think the Chihuhua (sp?) dogs are an example, but I'm not sure I remember correctly. Anyhow, the extra reserve information can eventually be bred out and depleted in some circumstances. Domestic purebreds all have drastically decreased variation, but I think most still retain at least a little. I'm a little fuzzy on the details. Sorry if I'm getting anything wrong.


It looks reasonable enough, but I fail to see the mystery. I think you are just confirming all this, and it is something that is well known and logical: Of course an aggressive breeding program (where you intentionally inbreed creatures to breed certain traits clean) will reduce genetic variance. After all, that is the purpose of it. The thing is, natural selection usually don't select for some specific trait; it is more selecting for solutions to pressure.

Hans

#35 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 April 2008 - 05:37 PM

Now then, we all know natural selection can only subtract. It cannot add anything. That's Darwinism.

If there wasn't some source of variation, then it could only subtract. But there is a source of variation.

No form of selection adds variation. Selection consists of removing candidates from the pool. If there is a source of variation, the source does the adding and selection does the subtracting.

It doesn't get any more fundamental than this, yet we see (in the article) evolutionists claiming otherwise. They claimed natural selection was a source of variation. Now even if one supposes a single scientist got confused, everyone involved including the reporter should have spotted this. But most folks don't question their gods, so...

Mutation is supposed to supply variation. What they don't teach is that recombination runs circles around mutation when it comes to providing variety.

Maybe so, but how is that an argument against evolution? The more sources there exist for variation, the more probably is evolution. Lately, they seem to be reviving Lamarck.

I'll allow you some time to reconsider. If you know the history, you may recall that Mendel's genetics was considered by evolutionists to be antithetical to Darwinism.

Lamarckism is a poor fallback position, only worthy of those who adopt an anything-but-the-truth attitude. It was fairly thoroughly explored by Lysenko's crew, and it appears they're hoping nobody's aware of those results (and some others).

Yes, and? So, now we have both mutation and recombination as a source of variation for natural selection to work on. Makes life even easier for evolution.

Like I'm saying, you need to reconsider.

At some point I think we need a thread to discuss this information theory issue: It is a misunderstanding to view DNA in terms of information theory.

I'd advise you to do some homework first. There's a link to a free online pdf of Dr. Gitt's book on the subject - I think it's in the book review thread.

#36 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 23 April 2008 - 07:50 PM

Contrary to what evolutionists think, natural selection doesn't create populations, it simply stablizes them. Adaptive traits are self-generated in each member of a population. This can happen during development or even later in life. Some of these traits can be heritable.

The reason evolutionists put so much emphasis on natural selection is because they they need NS to be the cause of evolution.. To them, the cause of evolution cannot be variation, because if variation itself is adaptive, it makes natural selection redundant as an adaptor. The cause of evolutionary change is either populational via natural selection, or it's individual via self-emergent mechanisms such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer and others.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, the real cause of evolution is whatever is responsible for generating variation.

If anyone is interested in a great scientifc critique of natural selection, look no further than the following book by Robert Reid:

http://www.amazon.co...09005036&sr=1-1

Of all the books I have, this is probably the most impressive. It's truly a stunningly brilliant book, in my opinion. It's a bit pricey, but it's absolutely worth it. You can get an idea of its flavor by clicking the "search inside this book" link.... or the overview puts it all in a nutshell quite nicely:

"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution. He writes that the causes of variations, which he refers to as natural experiments, are independent of natural selection; indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution. Reid proposes an alternative theory to explain how emergent novelties are generated and under what conditions they can overcome the resistance of natural selection. He suggests that what causes innovative variation causes evolution, and that these phenomena are environmental as well as organismal.

After an extended critique of selectionism, Reid constructs an emergence theory of evolution, first examining the evidence in three causal arenas of emergent evolution: symbiosis/association, evolutionary physiology/behavior, and developmental evolution. Based on this evidence of causation, he proposes some working hypotheses, examining mechanisms and processes common to all three arenas, and arrives at a theoretical framework that accounts for generative mechanisms and emergent qualities. Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. Finally, Reid proposes a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 April 2008 - 09:25 PM

Contrary to what evolutionists think, natural selection doesn't create populations, it simply stablizes them. Adaptive traits are self-generated in each member of a population.  This can happen during development or even later in life.  Some of these traits can be heritable.

The reason evolutionists put so much emphasis on natural selection is because they they need NS to be the cause of evolution..  To them, the cause of evolution cannot be variation, because if variation itself is adaptive, it makes natural selection redundant as an adaptor. The cause of evolutionary change is either populational via natural selection, or it's individual via self-emergent mechanisms such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer and others.

The first two sentences are illogical. Making a thing redundant is the opposite of making it necessary.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, the real cause of evolution is whatever is responsible for generating variation.

The real cause of variation is recombination. (Mutation is flawed recombination.) That is, at the genetic level. Now at the level of the actual lifeform produced, environment plays an interactive role. Some genes may or may not be expressed, although they are present.

For example, one may obtain calloused hands by working with a shovel. The information is present, and when it is appropriate, it will be expressed. Both Lamarckism and Darwinism rely upon misunderstandings and ignorance of how recombination & gene expression account for variation.

If anyone is interested in a great scientifc critique of natural selection, look no further than the following book by Robert Reid:

http://www.amazon.co...09005036&sr=1-1

Of all the books I have, this is probably the most impressive.  It's truly a stunningly brilliant book, in my opinion. It's a bit pricey, but it's absolutely worth it. You can get an idea of its flavor by clicking the "search inside this book" link.... or the overview puts it all in a nutshell quite nicely:

"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution. He writes that the causes of variations, which he refers to as natural experiments, are independent of natural selection; indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution. Reid proposes an alternative theory to explain how emergent novelties are generated and under what conditions they can overcome the resistance of natural selection. He suggests that what causes innovative variation causes evolution, and that these phenomena are environmental as well as organismal.

After an extended critique of selectionism, Reid constructs an emergence theory of evolution, first examining the evidence in three causal arenas of emergent evolution: symbiosis/association, evolutionary physiology/behavior, and developmental evolution. Based on this evidence of causation, he proposes some working hypotheses, examining mechanisms and processes common to all three arenas, and arrives at a theoretical framework that accounts for generative mechanisms and emergent qualities. Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. Finally, Reid proposes a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."

View Post

Thanks, but I'll probably pass. I did as you suggested and "searched inside" for "lamarck". This book looks like little more than an attempt to tweak Lamarckism and prepare so it'll be ready & waiting when people come to realize how miserably Darwinism has failed. I suspect "developmental evolution" is just an euphemism for recap, one of the ugliest doctrines ever promoted. If I'm correct, this is just a handbook for the necromancy of dead ideas. I've already seen too much necromancy in evolutionsim to suit me.

Now the book may contain some good arguments against natural selection, but Lamarckism was never incompatible with anything Darwin proposed. Natural selection, if redundant, would still serve quite nicely as a backup for difficult observations. A very versatile backup, capable of explaining any past events. Any.

...........
Aw crud!

on Page 419:
"... the groups already in occupation of them. This is more a matter of ecological succession than evolution, yet it crudely recapitulates evolutionary history. ..."


That was too easy to predict. Doubletalk notwithstanding, this is what it is.

#38 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 12:17 AM

[quote name='CTD' date='Apr 23 2008, 05:37 PM']
If there wasn't some source of variation, then it could only subtract. But there is a source of variation.[/quote]
No form of selection adds variation. Selection consists of removing candidates from the pool. If there is a source of variation, the source does the adding and selection does the subtracting.

It doesn't get any more fundamental than this, yet we see (in the article) evolutionists claiming otherwise. They claimed natural selection was a source of variation. Now even if one supposes a single scientist got confused, everyone involved including the reporter should have spotted this. But most folks don't question their gods, so...[/quote]

I question any gods, do you? :)

Yes they claimed natural selection was the cause for the variation, and yes if you must nitpick semantics that is actually incorrect. The correct wodring would be that natural selection was responsible for establishing in the population the variation introduced by other sources (presumably mutations).

I guess they just didn't expect a language lesson. And I still haven't understood why you feel this is in any way important for the evolution/creation debate?


[QUOTE]I'll allow you some time to reconsider. If you know the history, you may recall that Mendel's genetics was considered by evolutionists to be antithetical to Darwinism. [/QUOTE]

No I don't recall that, and if it was, I disagree with those evolutionists.

[QUOTE]Lamarckism is a poor fallback position, only worthy of those who adopt an anything-but-the-truth attitude.[/QUOTE]

It is not a fall-back position. However, some recent research indicated that there exist cases where phenotype is indeed inherited.

[QUOTE]I'd advise you to do some homework first. There's a link to a free online pdf of Dr. Gitt's book on the subject - I think it's in the book review thread.[/QUOTE]

Well, Dr. Gitt is not he only authority on this. I reserve the right to disagree with him.

Hans

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 April 2008 - 03:11 AM

I question any gods, do you?  :P

Yes they claimed natural selection was the cause for the variation, and yes if you must nitpick semantics that is actually incorrect. The correct wodring would be that natural selection was responsible for establishing in the population the variation introduced by other sources (presumably mutations).

View Post


Look again. They specifically say it couldn't be mutation. Here, I'll repaste it

The researchers attribute this increase in genetic variety to natural selection, as the timeframe was too short for this diversity to be attributable to genetic mutation, and the Islands are much too isolated to have undergone migrations. “This variety can be explained by elimination, over the generations, of individuals with low genetic diversity. In small isolated populations, related individuals are likely to reproduce amongst themselves, resulting in inbreeding and homozygotes.



I guess they just didn't expect a language lesson. And I still haven't understood why you feel this is in any way important for the evolution/creation debate?

No I don't recall that, and if it was, I disagree with those evolutionists.

The issue has to do with introducing new variety. Genetics & recombination result in reshuffling of traits possessed by ancestors. Same traits - same critter. Without any source of new traits, nothing evolves (using a real definition).

I don't want to make a snap decision. As of now I'm reluctant to revisit the history of how the "modern synthesis" came about. Lysenko totally rejected genetics, and with Stalin's help that field of study was effectively banned in the USSR. It's interesting, but may deserve its own thread.

It is not a fall-back position. However, some recent research indicated that there exist cases where phenotype is indeed inherited.

With or without genes?

I'm guessing, based on the pattern of previous claims, that the genes are present yet unexpressed. But I understand Lysenko's success stories may have a different twist. The problem is that his "miracles" only last for a single generation & then they're erased. I know he worked with hybrid plants & grafting, but I don't know the details.

#40 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 06:16 AM

Look again. They specifically say it couldn't be mutation. Here, I'll repaste it
The issue has to do with introducing new variety. Genetics & recombination result in reshuffling of traits possessed by ancestors. Same traits - same critter. Without any source of new traits, nothing evolves (using a real definition).


OK; so I read it again :P . And you're right, they rule out mutation. However, they also don't talk about increased diversity. They just observe that diversity was retained, where conventional wisdom would expect it to be reduced.

Anyhow, whatever happend, this observation supports that genetic diversity is quite persistent. Please remind me: How is this not in support of evolution?

With or without genes?

I'm guessing, based on the pattern of previous claims, that the genes are present yet unexpressed.

(on neo-Lamarckism)

I'm afraid I don't remember the details, but yes, it was something about being able to turn on or off genes, due to environment pressure, and it was, among other places, observed in humans. One example is populations where the average hight is low due to poor nourishment. In modern times we have seen a number of populations that have gone from poor to good nourisment in a generation, and if the low hight was purely phenotype, you would expect the first well-nourished generation to be of normal hight. But they aren't; it takes a couple of generations.

But I understand Lysenko's success stories may have a different twist.


I'm not familar with his work, sorry.

Hans




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users