Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Says . . .


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#61 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,025 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 October 2017 - 09:30 PM

I deleted my response to Goku. Basically I believe his tactic is always the same, to basically present the speculation and conjecture of evolution theory. Also when he said statistically those traits most beneficial for survival will be selected, I believe there was nothing in my posts to suggest I would not understand that. In other words, when evolutionists start to patronise by using the "I'm teaching you evolution here" tactic, that's when I walk away.

 

I notice this a lot as a rhetorical device - that if a person omits certain facts and things they know, (we can't type everything), then the debater will then take the opportunity to explain those things, and this gives a false impression that the other person didn't know those things.

 

Now I know most evolutionists themselves aren't aware they are doing this but when people just start stating things that go without saying, because they want to present the false argument of, "you just don't understand evolution", then to be frank I am not going to hang around being insulted by people. 

 

All of my points are strong ones - "selection" is only limited to selecting those most fit for survival, that as a "non-random" element, even if I conceded it, is only what logic calls a vacuous truth. In the very same way if there is random violence the first person to be attacked will be the first person to be attacked. (both tautologies, showing they are both weak points.) For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across. In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".

 

Lol!

 

I didn't state basic things because I am looking to patronize; I stated them because it is those basic things that address the objection to evolution you raised. It really is that simple.

 

Yes, natural selection is selecting those most fit, and what is most fit in a given environment is non-random, and thus the end result of the process over many generations is non-random. You can call it a tautology and vacuous truth because it sounds so self-evident when phrased that way if you want. However, it is that vacuous truth that demonstrates your statement about evolution being nothing but mindless randomness is in error.

 

 

For imagine we said the best way to choose attractive women is to go out and select the first person we come across. In the same way imagine we said the best way to get sophistication in life, echolocation, and exploding bombariers and dart-eating slugs, and unimaginably clever physics, etc. and to have all life be viably designed, is just to select for, "conducive for survival".

 

Lol!

There is a fundamental error to this analogy. The problem, as Popoi explained, is that natural selection is not random selection. Natural selection doesn't take every mutation that comes along; there are standards.

 

I suppose that is one of those patronizing points; of course natural selection doesn't select mutations at random - white rabbits in snow-filled terrain will be selected while brown rabbits will not be selected due to camouflage (or lack thereof). While you seem capable of stating examples that are true in order to 'prove' you understand them, like the rabbit one in the other post, you also make statements like your attractive women analogy that suggest you don't always apply that understanding.

 

The cause in my example was that black bunnies got picked off. In another environment it would be different, that those with sickled cells wouldn't die of anemia, so they would survive. In both circumstances the true cause was something particular, but collectively you call this, "natural selection". In a way it could be called, "natural circumstances combined with mutations". But natural circumstances are randomly doled out.
 

This has now occurred to me - a new thought, that the natural circumstances you call "natural selection" are in fact random circumstances which are tenuously called "selection" collectively, but those circumstances themselves also occur randomly meaning natural selection is random. Malaria in that area was random, bunnies in the snow surviving was random.

 

Conclusion; Natural selection is random after all!

 

:get_a_clue:  

 

The "selection" part is referring to what is selected in a given environment irrespective of how that environment came to be. I don't play first person shooter games and I'm pretty sure this is not how they work (although I remember something like this in Metal Gear Solid where you could change your clothes to match the terrain to conceal yourself from enemies), but let's try this analogy as inspired by your bunny example. You are about to go into a specific map with a specific type of terrain; maybe it is the desert where tan and light brown colors are best for camouflage, maybe it is a forest where green and brown are good, or a tundra where white and grey are good, maybe a canyon where a mix of browns, tans, and reds are good, and so on. The map is chosen at random, and once the map is chosen you can select which colored uniform you put on. The circumstances surrounding your environment are completely random, but would you say that the selection of which uniform you take is random because the map you were forced to play on was chosen at random?



#62 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 05 October 2017 - 08:17 AM

Didn't we get past the Natural Selection (Micro-evolution) discussion a long time ago? We all know that natural selection can select brown rabbits (pigmented fur) or white rabbits (fur lacking pigment) depending on environmental factors. The issue of "randomness" is not that important. What is important is that evolution can only select from the genetic information that already exists within a given population. Macro-evolution is the level of change which requires the "writing" of novel genetic information by way of accumulating mutations. This is what we don't see. 



#63 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 October 2017 - 09:51 AM

I would say that the first guy is walking at random, the second guy is walking in a direction he chose at random. The difference is that we can expect the second guy to make progress in that direction over time, but we can't really expect anything about where the first guy will end up.

keep preaching it, it might make it true someday.
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
- The Origin at 150 is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight.htm

every single tenet of the modern synthesis has been either overturned or rewritten.

#64 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 October 2017 - 09:54 AM

Didn't we get past the Natural Selection (Micro-evolution) discussion a long time ago? We all know that natural selection can select brown rabbits (pigmented fur) or white rabbits (fur lacking pigment) depending on environmental factors. The issue of "randomness" is not that important. What is important is that evolution can only select from the genetic information that already exists within a given population. Macro-evolution is the level of change which requires the "writing" of novel genetic information by way of accumulating mutations. This is what we don't see.

natural selection is a minor league player.
it is not a dominate force in evolution.
there is NO evidence that natueral selection encourages complexity.

#65 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 October 2017 - 10:26 AM

why is evolution progressive?

It is fundamentally necessary that it should be progressive if Darwinian natural selection is to perform the explanatory role in our world view that we require of it, and that it alone can perform”
- https://academic.oup...ionary-Progress

According to one prominent critic, Stephen Jay Gould, “Progress is a noxious, culturally embedded, untestable, nonoperational, intractable idea that must be replaced if we wish to understand the patterns of history” (Gould 1988, p. 319).

gould was a critic of evolution?
gee, i wonder what else we don't know about gould.
we already know how he felt about gradualism.

#66 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 October 2017 - 10:46 AM

 

 

Goku: There is a fundamental error to this analogy. The problem, as Popoi explained, is that natural selection is not random selection. Natural selection doesn't take every mutation that comes along; there are standards.

 

But in real life what is literally happening? There is a course of events which aren't really as simplistic as your comment, as though some choice is made. If mutations exist to be passed on you make it sound like they are immediately voted out. In real life if alleles exist and are reproduced, firstly they are reproduced in a living thing, then because that individual may have a disadvantage in X circumstance, he may die and not pass on the mutation, OR, he may pass it on, and it may be that the frequency of the allele in that gene pool, becomes less, and less individuals have it until it is gone. So that circumstance happened to X gene but in another place in the world where a similar mutation occurred we shall pretend, it wasn't less fit in that circumstance so it carries on existing as neutral, or beneficial in another place. So these events are called, "natural selection" but it all happens randomly anyway. The mutation was random, the individual it happened to was random, where it happened was random, and the events that happened to decrease it in a gene pool were random, and had it happened a second time over that mutation might have carried on for a while in that population, because Johnny the caveman's wife didn't touch her hand on the leaf which gave her an infection this time around, meaning they did reproduce. 

 

The genes that are passed on, include the mutations, if the individual survives to that point to reproduce them. The mutational load, it's called, or the "genetic load". John Sanford a geneticist IIRC, calls it, "rust". Genetic rust - mutations selection can't touch if I am to use the evolutionary terminology which unfortunately I must use.

 

Because most mutations are either neutral or detrimental, mostly the ones that occur have no effect to the point of making the individual die, meaning if the individual has s@x and reproduces those mutations are passed on. But the frequency that are passed on can be consequential.

 

This means that an accumulation of mutations creates a burden. The way that is countered by, "selection" is mutation-selection-balance, which means that negative selection, means that fewer offspring might occur in that gene pool so the allele if of less frequency if less individuals have it, and less survive than the fitter. ("negative selection" - Lol. A fancy term for what is simply, "a lesser amount that survived and reproduced")

 

So then the, "standards" you talk about seems like the type of personification used for the term, "selection". People select, and people have standards, but in reality what we have is reproduction, and X amount of individuals in a group, and that creates frequencies for genes. Either genes still exist and are unavoidably passed on by reproduction, or they don't or are fewer and can be weeded out eventually. But mostly the mutations don't have significance so they build up. 

 

However all of that is random. The mutations that happened where random, the place they happened in was random, whether that are harmful, neutral or beneficial depends on many random factors such as those. What you "end up with" is what you call, "natural selection". But really it's just what you end up with after a series of random events. :acigar:

 

As for your analogy Goku, it's to put the cart before the horse. You seem to think of natural selection as some type of genuine selection like with a person selecting deliberately on a game. No, "natural selection" is just the name of every type of circumstance which leaves you with whatever genes are present in reproducing individuals in a population. That means that if we are to speak in literal terms about what is happening in nature, with the pretend bunny example, that's an example of what is happening in actually real terms, or with the malaria example. You are presented with genes in individuals and you are provided them randomly, through circumstances which happen to occur. Then what genes are still in existence, are passed on.

 

That's all selection is, that the ones that exist to be reproduced, are reproduced. 

 

 

Goku: There is a fundamental error to this analogy. The problem, as Popoi explained, is that natural selection is not random selection. Natural selection doesn't take every mutation that comes along; there are standards.

 

I suppose that is one of those patronizing points; of course natural selection doesn't select mutations at random - white rabbits in snow-filled terrain will be selected while brown rabbits will not be selected due to camouflage (or lack thereof). While you seem capable of stating examples that are true in order to 'prove' you understand them, like the rabbit one in the other post, you also make statements like your attractive women analogy that suggest you don't always apply that understanding.

 

 

This is ironic, given it seems you don't know that mutations have to be "taken", when they come along. Selection doesn't "take them", as though selection exists AFTERWARDS, to make a choice. (Lol) - no, you misunderstand evolution here - selection IS the part where X genes in gene pool P are passed on. Beyond that there is no choice in the matter, it seems to me you think natural selection is something that happens when all the votes are in, Lol - no, all of the votes are selection - that means when they reproduce, there is no selection, it has already at that stage, been determined which genes existed for once they are passed on during reproduction then there are no choices. That's why people have things run in the family, are prone to certain diseases, because there is no choice - what survives, survives because it is reproduced. If there was a standard, if selection truly was non-random it would have the power to reject certain mutations. No it accepts all, and THEN only afterwards, an individual may not survive with that mutation, or less of them might. But all of them are "chosen", if they are reproduced. 

 

Selection can't stop anything, because there is no selection, there is simply the genes that exist and are passed on, and those that aren't so can't be because they don't exist. If selection had any real standard it could "not accept" a gene, but it can't do that because natural selection is a description of how genes persist because they are fit enough to be continually reproduced that's all. It isn't a force or a choice-maker or a designer. If it was a force all of the genetic rust we have in our genes could be cleaned up by selection. Funny how it can't clean away some rust but it can allegedly create elephants and trees. :rolleyes: 

 

 

 

 

Goku:  While you seem capable of stating examples that are true in order to 'prove' you understand them, like the rabbit one in the other post, you also make statements like your attractive women analogy that suggest you don't always apply that understanding

 

But this is a weak attempt at a personal attack really. I think the statement reveals your psychology too; to your mind correctness is determined on the basis of how much agreement the person offers, for evolution theory. Any criticism of it and it seems you regard that as a misunderstanding of evolution theory. Your main tactic in debates is to basically repeat what evolution says.

 

Example;

 

mike says evolution is incorrect or false because of P

Goku will then explain P.

mike will reiterate fault despite P.

Goku will then re-state P.

 

IN other words - you think it is sufficient not to think, but instead rather to just tell us what evolution theory says as an answer to any criticism of it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users