Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 264 of 323 (811336)
06-07-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
06-05-2017 8:43 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
Being a dedicated evolutionist, I certainly share, nonetheless, the reationist’s opinion of the natural selection (NS) idea as of a substitution for the idea of God almighty. In my eyes, the idea of NS is one of the most preposterous in the history of science — just like phlogiston and universal aether. Perhaps, it is the most preposterous idea of them all
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement — and a few more.
RAZD ardently insists that NS takes place in reality — and I fully agree. Indeed, there operates NS among gene alleles, in populations with sexual reproduction. NS among populations also operates - to the bad or to the good.
Yet the thing is that there is no Darwinian NS, in the world of sex. A well known circumstance — for instance, see good Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, chapter 3). And not only Dawkins So there is no Darwinian NS, yet Darwinian evolution happily proceeds. How very amusing.
And the final stroke: biological evolution needs no natural selection at all This paradoxical circumstance is also well known long since. Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 8:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2017 9:50 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:33 PM Vlad has replied
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 06-07-2017 3:39 PM Vlad has not replied
 Message 290 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2017 9:19 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 276 of 323 (811444)
06-08-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by RAZD
06-07-2017 12:33 PM


Biston betularia
Well, I’ll try and conscientiously lay my few theses bare. Yet, primarily I am to comment on the notorious Biston betularia subject. Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles. In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. At that, it remained the same Biston betularia while the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?
A river adapts to the terrain, a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what? The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all. Says one evolutionary theorist: ...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved? (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks And the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2013).
As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), the processes of speciation are irreversible. In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex. Incidentally, the fundamental work is titled On the Origin of Species... and not On the Adaptation of Populations... And if microevolution were true evolution, then tide and ebb would be evolution as well.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by JonF, posted 06-08-2017 9:50 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 278 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2017 10:12 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:46 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 281 by ringo, posted 06-08-2017 12:03 PM Vlad has not replied
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 2:44 PM Vlad has not replied
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2017 4:27 PM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 289 of 323 (811554)
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Random NS
All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back; so what has evolved? Says one evolutionary philosopher: Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] Contrariwise, irreversibility, unidirectionality means that successive accumulation of changes takes place — the necessary feature of Darwinian evolution.
Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of evolution. Well, everybody chooses for himself. At that, Modern Synthesis (still modern being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg — beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on. A shame.
Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]
Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: ...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]
We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 9:27 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 10:45 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 295 of 323 (811655)
06-10-2017 8:18 AM


Random Darwinian NS
I am afraid RAZD (see post 291) is going to throw a tantrum A pity, still I am to go on with my theses — including this of spontaneous evolution being altogether in no need of natural selection.
Incidentally, Darwinist Douglas Futuyma identifies Darwinian NS as a selection among individuals. [Evolution, 2005, p. 406] Anybody objects? And let me recall that Darwinian NS is non-existent, in the world of sexual reproduction (to be duly substantiated).
Yet, in the world of asexual prokaryotes, Darwinian NS happily operates, and under its pressure the type 2s bacteria are finally exterminated. Please, notice, that selection among individuals, in the world of asexual reproduction, operates alongside with that selection among clones. Simple and nice.
Well, let bygone be bygone. The process of Darwinian NS is irreversible. Then suppose that later the professor Orr’s bio-community is invaded by severe viral infection, and type 1s bacteria are wholly exterminated. At that, the type 2s bacteria were highly resistant to this very virus, and surely would live through the infection. Alas, the short-sighted NS already has eliminated the type, operating here and now.
Besides, professor Orr doesn’t notice that Darwinian NS, in his exercise, only erases genetic information — quite valuable, at times. At that, selection creates no new genetic information. A shame.
The above exercise is duly generalized in the theory of optimal control. Once a process, first, develops within ever changing environment, second, is irreversible, and decisions, third, are taken myopically, then the process would inevitably advance chaotically and ramble randomly. The prose of cybernetics. Darwinian NS qualifies for all the conditions mentioned, and therefore it operates quite randomly — in the long range.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2017 8:38 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2017 6:09 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 298 of 323 (811788)
06-12-2017 8:25 AM


Long range
We are definitely losing RAZD A pity, he (she) is so amusing. And my conscionable advice to Taq: he (she) should iterate the mantra microevolution is still evolution 10 thousand times. Then perhaps the dream would come true.
Well, let’s get back to our muttons. Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random. The trouble is that Darwinists (those who still take Darwinian doctrine seriously) practice single-step thinking, so they do not discern observed appearances and hidden reality. A complete theoretical squalidity. Besides, military men know only too well that a succession of tactical decisions would never grow per se up to a strategy. No wonder, military men are reasonable and educated people
Creationists believe in god almighty. Being unable to reason in the long range prospect, Darwinists believe in natural selection envisioned as a non-random process. This is one of the massed preconceptions that constitute the mainstream evolutionary model (MM). As adamant Darwinists, the MM theorists also believe that NS is the driving (and guiding) force of biological evolution. Thereto, the theorists believe — or pretend to do — that microevolution is in sooth evolution. Credo quia absurdum. Believing warms the heart

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:42 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 300 by bluegenes, posted 06-12-2017 9:47 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 301 by Taq, posted 06-12-2017 10:40 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 06-12-2017 12:01 PM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 303 of 323 (812012)
06-14-2017 8:32 AM


Eyes issue
Bluegenes tends to ascribe some stupid beliefs to me — evidently so that to demonstratively falsify them. A shame. Believing is the portion of creationists and Darwinists; they have a lot in common. While I only believe in the Cartesian principle: Doubt, as far as possible, all things. Darwinian doctrine included.
Bluegenes also seems to be obsessed with the eyes issue. O.K. let’s talk eyes. Take a proverbial example of the so-called box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora (the phylum Cnidaria, the class Cubozoa) which possesses 24 eyes, housed in four rhopalia. Four of the 6 eyes in each rhopalium are simple photo sensors, but two have light-focusing lenses. The primitive creature has elaborate camera eyes with actual retinas, corneas, and lenses!
The thing is the box jellyfish possesses amazingly elaborate eyes while it has no brain at all, and so this bizarre creature, in fact, cannot perceive the images generated by its eyes. Indeed, we see rather with our brains than with our eyes. After all, a photographic camera lens properly builds images, yet the device does not see anything.
Well, what would Darwinists invent in order to elucidate the strange case of Tripedalia cystophora eyes? Has non-random NS tooled box jellyfish up with the excellent yet absolutely useless eyes?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:01 PM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 304 of 323 (812013)
06-14-2017 8:36 AM


Eyes issue
Bluegenes tends to ascribe some stupid beliefs to me — evidently so that to demonstratively falsify them. A shame. Believing is the portion of creationists and Darwinists; they have a lot in common. While I only believe in the Cartesian principle: Doubt, as far as possible, all things. Darwinian doctrine included.
Bluegenes also seems to be obsessed with the eyes issue. O.K. let’s talk eyes. Take a proverbial example of the so-called box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora (the phylum Cnidaria, the class Cubozoa) which possesses 24 eyes, housed in four rhopalia. Four of the 6 eyes in each rhopalium are simple photo sensors, but two have light-focusing lenses. The primitive creature has elaborate camera eyes with actual retinas, corneas, and lenses!
The thing is the box jellyfish possesses amazingly elaborate eyes while it has no brain at all, and so this bizarre creature, in fact, cannot perceive the images generated by its eyes. Indeed, we see rather with our brains than with our eyes. After all, a photographic camera lens properly builds images, yet the device does not see anything.
Well, what would Darwinists invent in order to elucidate the strange case of Tripedalia cystophora eyes? Has non-random NS tooled box jellyfish up with the excellent yet absolutely useless eyes?
Edited by Vlad, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 11:19 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 306 by Chiroptera, posted 06-14-2017 11:43 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 308 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 12:03 PM Vlad has not replied
 Message 310 by bluegenes, posted 06-16-2017 7:09 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 311 of 323 (812372)
06-16-2017 9:10 AM


Mutations and new information
The founder of Darwinism once has pronounced: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. [Charles Darwin. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189]
Here we are. Tripedalia cystophora represents just what Charles Darwin had in mind as a most baffling case. The gradualist idea of natural selection is nicely falsified, according to sir Karl (Popper). At that, a non-gradualist idea of NS would hardly be sensible
An imaginary experiment would yet more clarify the matter: let’s make two powerful computer programs — the Deep Thought and the Chess Wizard (each regularly beats grand masters) - compete. At that, assume that the Deep Thought’s decision horizon is deliberately limited so that the program wouldn’t foresee the game prospects beyond the immediate move. That is, being myopic, the Deep Thought resolves rationally here and now, yet it is not able to look ahead. This is why the experiment is conducted with computer programs and not with human chess players. As against a chess program, it wouldn’t be easy to really enforce the short-sighted vision upon a competent player.

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by JonF, posted 06-16-2017 10:39 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 313 of 323 (812610)
06-18-2017 8:23 AM


Debunking
Besides, the chess players cannot withdraw moves; the process is irreversible. In other words, the Deep Thought program performs just like Darwinian NS that does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. Then how would the competition advance? Exactly! The myopic Deep Thought would be checkmated, fast and inescapably. And what is more, the short-sighted program would display the quite chaotic performance. In fact, it would demonstrate a random walk. The myopic chess player wanders blindly...
Verstehen Sie? Sehr gut. Then imagine a chimpanzee placed in the pilot’s seat of an airliner: does the ape guide the flight? Sure it does - in a sense This is just the way NS guides biological evolution. And no wonder, the process is now and again interrupted with mass extinctions.
Amusingly, as distinct from Darwinian NS, natural selection among gene alleles is not so random because NS among alleles is quite reversible process. So Darwinian NS actually guides evolution, in the world of asexual reproduction. Alas, it does chaotically and randomly. On the other hand, NS among alleles (microevolution) is not so random, yet it hardly concerns evolution. Wily Mother Nature

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2017 11:31 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 315 of 323 (812779)
06-20-2017 8:33 AM


Selection
Blimey, RAZD already has digested the tricky word reversibility. So he (she) will also learn the term irreversibility soon.
In order to encourage RAZD I’d like to propose one more eyes case. Let’s compare the box jellyfish to the much more advanced Nautilus pompilius - the species of a sea mollusk endowed with the primitive pinhole eye.
The latter case has been considered by good Richard Dawkins. Nautilus is a bit of a puzzle in its own right. Why, in all the hundreds of millions of years since its ancestors first evolved a pinhole eye, did it never discover the principle of the lens? ... What is worrying about nautilus is that the quality of its retina suggests that it would really benefit, greatly and immediately, from a lens. ... Nautilus appears to be sitting right next door to an obvious and immediate improvement, yet it doesn't take the small step necessary. [The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 85-86]
It should be commented that, being the adamant Darwinist, Dawkins has repeatedly caused heavy damage to the only true evolutionary doctrine. Of course, altogether unintentionally...
Now add the two cases together: here NS didn’t manage to maintain a simple and demanded improvement, in many millions of years. And there the amazingly complex device has emerged all of sudden though it was flagrantly redundant and absolutely useless. However, bluegenes will easily construe also a case of mushrooms with camera eyes. You see, natural selection
Well, sapienti sat already. Still I am prepared to go on with as much amusing cases.

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Taq, posted 06-20-2017 11:50 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2017 12:29 PM Vlad has not replied
 Message 318 by ringo, posted 06-20-2017 12:39 PM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 319 of 323 (813002)
06-22-2017 8:31 AM


What is natural selection?
I entertained no doubts that local Darwinists would immediately flood the awkward facts with blah-blah. They didn’t fail. Thanks, guys. And my response to the ringo’s thoughtful query reads: Demand no laureate's wreath, think nothing of abuse, and never argue with a fool.
These are the words of great Horatio, in the other great poet’s recital. Verstehen Sie?
As is known, species reside in a state of stasis (see Nautilus pompilius), and so biological evolution actually begins with speciation, in the world of sex. While as for the microevolution and NS, I am going to present you an absolutely anecdotal case. Look and see.
After all, what is natural selection? Classic Ernst Mayr once has proposed a nice and neat notion: ...Natural selection is simply the elimination of the less fit and of the less fortunate. (The Resistance to Darwinism And the Misconceptions on Which It Was Based. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 39). Then a naive question suggests itself: what in particular is more or less fit here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by JonF, posted 06-22-2017 8:49 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 321 by Stile, posted 06-22-2017 10:17 AM Vlad has not replied
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 06-22-2017 11:06 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 2417 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 323 of 323 (813187)
06-24-2017 8:37 AM


What is fitness?
...And never argue with a fool. Stile is no fool, yet he (she) makes typical misstep: compare his (her) wording to this by Taq that is quite correct. The viability and fitness are two big differences: a bacterium may happily survive yet it may have no progeny at all.
(Besides, Taq contributes the expressive image: do the hominid skulls belong to one and the same species? Or do they belong to different species which resided each in a state of stasis?)
The thing is that biological evolution is all about reproduction. So entities, which are unable to reproduce, represent no evolutionary players. And according to the mainstream textbooks, biological fitness is measured by reproductive (procreative) success while viability is just a necessary condition of successful reproduction. For instance, ...In evolutionary biology, having more viable fertile offspring is fitter than having fewer. Reproductive success is the heart of the evolutionary concept. [Elliott Sober. Progress and Direction in Evolution. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 24]
Well, the theory of microevolution in whole is built upon the idea of individual fitness: individual organisms are more or less fit, and so natural selection As for the world of asexual prokaryotes, this idea looks quite plausible. Indeed, a bacterium begets more or less numerous descendants, and therefore, is considered more or less fit. Clear and neat.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024