Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:12 AM

OK; so I read it again  B) . 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.

Dude! :P

Chill... take a break. "The researchers attribute this increase in genetic variety to natural selection," it's right there. I think you need some rest.

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

I'll get back to you on that. I'm sleepy myself.

My main point when I posted the article was that it supported deification of natural selection. Please take care lest you inadvertently contribute to the case I'm making.

(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.
I'm not familar with his work, sorry.

Hans

View Post

Yep. We're cool on that stuff. The "switching" effect resembles Lamarckism, and can be mistaken by the careless for "rapid" mutation/speciation. But it's just genes doing what they're designed to do. Somewhat mysterious & beautiful when properly understood. Can't say for sure, but my guess is it can take a couple (or more in the famous case of the midwife toad) of generations for recombination to cycle the genes into play. The mainstream is slow to acknowledge how much of the information is kept in reserve (in the "junk DNA"). And it's not going to be easy to figure out, either.

No need to dig into Lysenko, unless you plan on participating in a Lamarckist revival. Then you'd do well to take a peek at how far his crew ventured down that path already.

Catch you later - goodness I'm tired!

#42 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

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

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:16 AM

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



well let's stop there, as you seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.

Let's say a population "evolves" a new trait....let's say, just for example, wing spots on a butterfly. Now there are two options as to how this can go down: either the population of individuals generates the new wing spot as a biological response to a changing environment OR (as ToE would claim) one lucky mutant just happened to develop the right adaptive spot, thereby making him fitter than the rest and thus making him a better breeder. Over time, then, the population becomes adapted via natural selection.

So adaptation is either a result of natural selection OR it's a result of purposeful, internal processes in response to changes in the environment from within the individual. An animal (or group of animals) cannot be adapted twice. If variation is in itself adaptive, then natural selection becomes redudant as an adaptor. As Robert Reid said, the cause of evolution cannot be natural selection (as evolutionists would suggest) because variation is the cause because it is sufficiently adaptive. If natural selection is not the cause of evolutionary change, then it's a deal-breaker for the theory of common descent.

Sorry if this is wordy -- I'm in a bit of hurry. Take care.

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:06 PM

well let's stop there, as you seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.

Let's say a population "evolves" a new trait....let's say, just for example, wing spots on a butterfly.  Now there are two options as to how this can go down: either the population of individuals generates the new wing spot as a biological response to a changing environment OR (as ToE would claim) one lucky mutant just happened to develop the right adaptive spot, thereby making him fitter than the rest and thus making him a better breeder.  Over time, then, the population becomes adapted via natural selection.

So adaptation is either a result of natural selection OR it's a result of purposeful, internal processes in response to changes in the environment from within the individual.  An animal (or group of animals) cannot be adapted twice.  If variation is in itself adaptive, then natural selection becomes redudant as an adaptor. As Robert Reid said, the cause of evolution cannot be natural selection (as evolutionists would suggest) because variation is the cause because it is sufficiently adaptive.  If natural selection is not the cause of evolutionary change, then it's a deal-breaker for the theory of common descent.

Sorry if this is wordy -- I'm in a bit of hurry.  Take care.

View Post

No, I see what's up. It's a typical distraction. This "adaptation" isn't a replacement for natural selection. There's no conflict; they're tag-team partners.

It's just an attempt to bring in a supplemental explanatory device when mutation doesn't cut it. This could be used, for example, to account for the too-large difference between humans & chimps. See: ns + mutation comes up short. Ns + mutation + adaptation god can claim to account for it.

Don't be fooled. There was no conflict in Darwin's time when Lamarckism + natural selection was claimed to evolve things. Look at your own example. The new device could be invoked to account for a different mouth piece while simultaneously changing the wing spot via mutation.

They see Darwinism alone can't cut it. This is all about propping up Darwinism by making Larmarckism appear life-like. It's a very antiscientific approach. Don't just buy into it because the guy claims there's a conflict. It's part of his snow-job & maybe an attempt to drum up attention. Take a good, critical look at what's actually being said.

#44 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:31 PM

Phenotype adaptation, neo Lamarckism, recombination ..... you know what they do?

They close a hole that did exist, once we realized that genomes chaged through mutations, namely: How does a a population survive in a changed environment till a useful mutation pops up and breeds true? And the answer is: It adapts through one or several of the other mechanisms.

Hans

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:56 PM

Found a good explanation of recombination & some other related subjects.

http://www.nwcreatio...tionreview.html

It's a tad long, but worth the time.

#46 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 25 April 2008 - 02:44 AM

Mmmm, might I suggest that you get your information by other sources than creationist sites as well?

Br, Hans

#47 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 25 April 2008 - 03:41 AM

Mmmm, might I suggest that you get your information by other sources than creationist sites as well?

Br, Hans

View Post

I did. The initial six sites I listed when I first mentioned recombination - that 6 was whittled down from 15 or 20 candidates, at least.

I submitted this latest link because it's easier reading, and gives a much more comprehensive report on the subject.

Phenotype adaptation, neo Lamarckism, recombination ..... you know what they do?

They close a hole that did exist, once we realized that genomes chaged through mutations, namely: How does a a population survive in a changed environment till a useful mutation pops up and breeds true? And the answer is: It adapts through one or several of the other mechanisms.

Hans

Well, if you acknowledged this hole in the past I must compliment you for being honest with yourself. I've not encountered any other evolutionists acknowledging this hole.

I hope to point out a few more holes in a while. I expect that one must have been a gaping chasm if you need so much to fill it.

#48 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

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

Posted 25 April 2008 - 06:10 AM

Mmmm, might I suggest that you get your information by other sources than creationist sites as well?


Why not ?

There is only two Principalities here.

Creation & Evolution.

A website supports one or the other, same as the scientists who write the articles on those two Principalities.

So what's the valid excuse for him to get is information from a website that does not support his belief.

That's like me asking you to explain your beliefs with the Bible :P

#49 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 25 April 2008 - 09:17 PM

It's just an attempt to bring in a supplemental explanatory device when mutation doesn't cut it. This could be used, for example, to account for the too-large difference between humans & chimps. See: ns + mutation comes up short. Ns + mutation + adaptation god can claim to account for it.

Don't be fooled. There was no conflict in Darwin's time when Lamarckism + natural selection was claimed to evolve things. {snip}

View Post

For example, this paragraph from Chap. 2, Descent of Man(bold added)

As the progenitors of man became more and more erect, with their hands and arms more and more modified for prehension and other purposes, with their feet and legs at the same time transformed for firm support and progression, endless other changes of structure would have become necessary. The pelvis would have to be broadened, the spine peculiarly curved, and the head fixed in an altered position, all which changes have been attained by man. Prof. Schaaffhausen* maintains that "the powerful mastoid processes of the human skull are the result of his erect position"; and these processes are absent in the orang, chimpanzee, &c., and are smaller in the gorilla than in man. Various other structures, which appear connected with man's erect position, might here have been added. It is very difficult to decide how far these correlated modifications are the result of natural selection, and how far of the inherited effects of the increased use of certain parts, or of the action of one part on another. No doubt these means of change often co-operate: thus when certain muscles, and the crests of bone to which they are attached, become enlarged by habitual use, this shews that certain actions are habitually performed and must be serviceable. Hence the individuals which performed them best, would tend to survive in greater numbers.



#50 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:21 AM

Why not ?

There is only two Principalities here.

Creation & Evolution.

A website supports one or the other, same as the scientists who write the articles on those two Principalities.

So what's the valid excuse for him to get is information from a website that does not support his belief.

That's like me asking you to explain your beliefs with the Bible  ;)

View Post

No, to get your information about evolution from a creationist site is like getting your information of the Bible from an atheist's annoation of it.

And specifically, evolutionists are often asked by creationists to explain a creationist view on evolution, which we basically can't.

Hans

#51 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2008 - 05:55 AM

No, to get your information about evolution from a creationist site is like getting your information of the Bible from an atheist's annoation of it.

And specifically, evolutionists are often asked by creationists to explain a creationist view on evolution, which we basically can't.

Hans


1:
Exactly, so to get your Science Information from an Evolutionists Atheistic Site is NO DIFFERENT ! They teach a one sided story the same.

2:
Correct, but a Creationists can explain an evolutionists view.

#52 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2008 - 06:22 AM

Re #1: An evolutionistic atheist site? I suppose it could be biased. I suggest you refer to scientific publications instead. But always read anything with a crititcal mind.

Re #2: Well, I have yet to meet one that could, but if you say so......

Hans

#53 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 29 April 2008 - 04:21 AM

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

View Post

Getting back to this now. I'm not going to look too much deeper into the mouton sheep. That example has served its purpose and demonstrated that recombination is highly underrated/discounted by professional evolutionists.

The problem for natural selection is its inability to discriminate between mutation and recombination. Unlike people who accept it, natural selection can never be made to understand the difference. (I speak not of deified natural selection, of course.)

Now this *becomes a problem when a bad mutation occurs in a creature at the same time as a good set of recombinations. This creature will be selected for rather than against.

The converse is true. A creature fortunate enough to be the recipient of a beneficial mutation will nonetheless be selected against if it fares poorly in the recombination lottery.

Recombination blurs the vision of the selector. And selecting the best recombinational results won't evolve anything new since this information was already present. It makes it harder for mutations to be selected for or against. Even artificial selection becomes more difficult unless one has access to sophisticated DNA analysis.

*I say "becomes" but in reality this is already the case. The 'before' & 'after' here consist of conceptual models. The first imagines mutations only, and the second acknowledges recombination also.

#54 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 29 April 2008 - 04:50 AM

Getting back to this now. I'm not going to look too much deeper into the mouton sheep. That example has served its purpose and demonstrated that recombination is highly underrated/discounted by professional evolutionists.


Well, since we don't know exactly what happened in the case of that sheep, there is no reason to do much more about it.

The problem for natural selection is its inability to discriminate between mutation and recombination. Unlike people who accept it, natural selection can never be made to understand the difference. (I speak not of deified natural selection, of course.)

Now this *becomes a problem when a bad mutation occurs in a creature at the same time as a good set of recombinations. This creature will be selected for rather than against.

The converse is true. A creature fortunate enough to be the recipient of a beneficial mutation will nonetheless be selected against if it fares poorly in the recombination lottery.

Recombination blurs the vision of the selector. And selecting the best recombinational results won't evolve anything new since this information was already present. It makes it harder for mutations to be selected for or against. Even artificial selection becomes more difficult unless one has access to sophisticated DNA analysis.

*I say "becomes" but in reality this is already the case. The 'before' & 'after' here consist of conceptual models. The first imagines mutations only, and the second acknowledges recombination also.


I'm sorry, but I still don't see any problem. All I see are a few more cards to shuffle and a few more ways to shuffle them. You know, we can observe that genetic variation occurs, and that natural selection works to select some traits over others. Unravelling the exact roles of the various mechanisms is perhaps best left to the specialists.

Hans

#55 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 12 May 2008 - 05:16 PM

My main point when I posted the article was that it supported deification of natural selection.

View Post

Well folks, I don't think I'll be looking for further support on this after today. See what I just found?

One word more upon the Deification of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared.

That's the prophet himself. Letter 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th [1860].
Darwin Complete Works Page

On second thought, maybe that's still not the final word. The powers Darwin envisioned for his new deity were less than those currently ascribed to it.

#56 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 20 May 2008 - 12:27 AM

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.


It's a great point. While not only that evolution can't stand as a theory, but also that there simply none is developed regarding to evolution, no theory, no rule no nothing. As a result, they don't have a theory to be tested against, and they don't have a theory to use to do the required scientific predictions.

To simply put, unlike science, evolution never tries to fit data into a theorized model or preset formula, such that it has the flexibility to explain any data at will and by will. So whatever they call 'evolution' is, you can't use it to predict what's the next to evolve under the current earth environment and according to their preset "theory" because their 'theory' is no theory.

They keep collecting fossils and predict fossils and telling fairtales about fossils but none can justify their "theory" that environment+time=evolution. And their research is never about environment, it's never about time neither, no matter it's counted directly or indirectly, it's nothing about environment nor time but fossil, fossil and fossil.

Their essence is, to arrange similar things together and by skiping the required rules/theory then talk you into believing that things going successively (but without following preset rules like a true scientific theory shall be). And their argument is "this is true because no better explanation can be found".

That's why it can't be used to predict the future occurrance because there's no rule there to chain up that "successive samples". More like to place 2 laptop PC from 2 vendors and declare that one is evolved from another, you can't predict "what's next" because your 2 PCs are not chained by a rule rather you talk others into believing that "one evolves".

#57 Hippocampus

Hippocampus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Camberley, England

Posted 10 July 2008 - 06:47 AM

1:
Exactly, so to get your Science Information from an Evolutionists Atheistic Site is NO DIFFERENT ! They teach a one sided story the same.

2:
Correct, but a Creationists can explain an evolutionists view.

View Post


Anyone interested in discovering the truth should be willing to hear the arguments and examine the evidence from both sides.

#58 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

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

Posted 14 July 2008 - 10:29 AM

Anyone interested in discovering the truth should be willing to hear the arguments and examine the evidence from both sides.

View Post


I'm well aware of this, as is every member on this forum, but I would rephrase the statement.

Anyone interested in learning, should be willing to hear the arguments and examine the evidence from both sides.


That makes more sense, but only to Christians. We know where the Truth came from and what it is.

BTW, I'd find it hard to believe that you have done more research in the Holy Bible than in Secular Science Doctrines.

I've spent the better half of my life reading, studying and believing in Evolutionary Doctrine.

I can garuntee that I've read THREE TIMES the amount of articles on Talkdeceptions.org, than I have at any creationists website, or the Bible for that fact.

Yet here I am. 6/24 day, 6,000 years ago Creationists.
The question you have to ask, and rightfully so is,

Is this Guy, like so many other Sceintists, Christians, Creationists, just STUPID !?! How on this Planet could my conversion have happen in the face of the MOUNTAINS of ToE evidence ?!?

I have the answers for that, btw, but I'd be interested in hearing your theory B)

#59 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 01 January 2009 - 08:01 AM

Anyone interested in discovering the truth should be willing to hear the arguments and examine the evidence from both sides.

View Post



I think that is very good advice to follow, and from what I've read so far, those you are arguing with have done so. Are you willing to take your own advice?

I’m the prime example of a former atheist who, after really looking at ALL the evidence, had to finally give into the truth. It was a natural step towards the fact that I could no longer deny the design in this universe. I could no longer deny that all of this could NOT have come from nothing. That my belief in evolution had no answers to the question of origins, and I could no longer deny that. That other than adaptation to surroundings (or micro evolution), there is fact no evidence for primordial ooze to man evolution (macro-evolution). No evidence that ooze became anything but more ooze and man has always been man.

I had to wrap my atheistic mind around some basic questions:

Why does any of this exist (or why is there anything)?
My atheistic materialist mind had no answer!

Why do I as a materialistic atheist even argue about anything when I am nothing but “matter in motion”, and survival means I (as a mere bag of biological mass) assert my evolutionary given right over the weaker bag of biological mass. Why even pretend to worry about ethics, morals, love, hate or anyone else’s opinion for that matter?
My atheistic materialist mind had no answer!

So where do I retreat for the answers? If thought is nothing more than electrons firing across the brain, where do these esoteric and metaphysical feelings for morality, virtue, ethics, love and even the idea of aesthetically pleasing beauty (to name a few) come from?
My atheistic materialist mind had no answer!


So, instead of living a lie, instead of remaining an emotionally ascetically and austere atheist, I searched further for meaning, because no atheistic writings or philosophy had (or was really trying) to find the answers.

Man is far more than “Nature, red in tooth and claw”, and to brush aside the metaphysical aspects, and cling naively this religion of nature only is intellectually stunting in many ways.

#60 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 06 January 2009 - 07:00 AM

If mutation and natural selection by themselves are not enough for adaptation to occur, then genetic algorithms would not have worked. They work pretty well, so what exactly is the problem?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users