natural selection is wrong

Perhaps the important point is that when they do occur advantageous mutations are wiped out significantly less frequently than neutral or deleterious mutations. Would you concur with that Syamsu?TTFN,WK

This message has been edited by Steen, 07-07-2004 11:22 PM

Why do you persist in misrepresenting my posts? Do you think that you "win" a debate by arguing against what I didn't even imply, that through dishonest arguments, you somehow can be "right"?False witness doesn't win you any points.

There is no deception whatsoever in my posts. I am right because advantageous mutations do get wiped out most times, for the reason i gave several times before. You either don't acknowledge this fact clear enough ("No..." "it's given that.. will dominate", "utter nonsense" etc.) or you actually don't believe it's true, which is both wrong. That you go on calling me a liar, merely reflects your own difficulties in acknowledging your errors.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well reasonably that's not true I guess, because theoretically the advantage is normally tiny, and so a tiny advantage would not generally result in significantly less extinction.I think it's more to the point with the current Darwinist paradigm ruling biology, to curb errors stemming from natural selection theory, rather then to uselessly overemphasize the significance of advantage once again. Darwinist literature is filled with statements such as that the "slightest" advantage will "inevitably" become to dominate, which fault is simply an error stemming from overemphasizing natural selection theory in the structure of knowledge about likelyhood of reproduction / preservation. As also Darwin's conception of racial and tribal struggle, as mentioned a few posts before, is simply an error stemming from observations being prejudicially confined by natural selection, prejudicially confined to groups of variants struggling against each other.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Well reasonably that's not true I guess, because theoretically the advantage is normally tiny, and so a tiny advantage would not generally result in significantly less extinction.

---

But a tiny advantage iterated many millions of times translates into quite a big advantage.The point that beneficial mutations get wiped out most of the time does not seem to me to challenge natural selection; it seems to elide the sheer scale of the sample size. Both beneficial and deleterious mutations will be wiped out most of the time, but obviously then beneficial mutations will be less pronbe to being wiped out; beucase they have conferred an enhanced survivability, no matter how trivial. We cannot say that agiven mutation will necessarily survive merely becuase it is advantageous; but we can confidently say that over time, advantageous mutations accumulate.

Natural selection isn't WRONG... The big conceptual problem is that natural selection is a destructive process and not a constructive one.That means you could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could construct a new building with a wrecking ball and dynamite. The theory of evolution amounts to a claim that new species arise from old via sheer, dumb luck, i.e. mutation, and then natural selection weeds out the unfit from all the multitudinous new species thus formed. You can see this process at work by walking outdoors, and noticing all the new species of animals, birds, insects and what not which are constantly arising via mutations. They say that a little bit of LSD or Columbian reefer helps (in seeing them)...

Your big conceptual problem is that natural selection isn't an indiscriminately destructive process, it's a selectively destructive one.

quote:

---

The big conceptual problem is that natural selection is a destructive process and not a constructive one.

---

More correctively, it is an adaptive process. If the weaker or less adapted die off, what reamin are the more fit, and thus more likely to preserve the species.

quote:

---

That means you could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could construct a new building with a wrecking ball and dynamite.

---

How come creationists always seek to use illogical allegories and false comparisons? The moment a creationist says "It is the same as if.." then we better watch out because we are being fed a bunch of B.S. Natural Selection changes a population over time. If we see a separation in populations, then NS over time will change the two populations sufficiently that they no longer are the same species. There is DIRECT evidence in the example of ring species. There is a tread here that is devoted to that topic. Go refute that, why don't you!

quote:

---

The theory of evolution amounts to a claim that new species arise..

---

Actually, that is NOT the Sicneitific Theory of Evolution. Are you one of those creationists who are THAT ignorant that all they know about Evolution is speciation. Given that speciation is only a minor part of evolution and is not even a necessary component, that kind of argument is FLAT OUT DISHONEST.

quote:

---

..from old via sheer, dumb luck, i.e. mutation,..

---

That you now need to misrepresent mutations to even make an argument is duly noted.

quote:

---

.. and then natural selection weeds out the unfit from all the multitudinous new species thus formed....

---

Another misrepresentation. Mutations themselves do not form new species. I am beginning to see how very little you actually know about this established science that you claim is in error. Yes, if all you have to argue against is your own misrepresentations of evolution, then your claims really are rather lame.Given the ignorance of evolution I have now seen, please reassure us that you actually know what evolution is. Please provide the best explanation you can, so we can be reassured that you actually know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

...You can see this process at work by walking outdoors, and noticing all the new species of animals, birds, insects and what not which are constantly arising via mutations. They say that a little bit of LSD or Columbian reefer helps (in seeing them)...

---

I duly note the inherent dishonesty in the very foundation of your argument. What would help YOU is some actual KNOWLEDGE. As I read your posts, even a grade-school text would be of benefit.

Help for Evolutionists:Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer James Watson New Scientist ^Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured.On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life. The breakthrough revealed how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next and revolutionised biology and medicine.But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity."If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent."Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."But other scientists have questioned both the ethics and plausibility of his suggestions.

Is there ANYTHING of relevance in that post, or are you merely avoiding the issues raised?

So you are saying that advantageous mutations are not retained in populations significantly more frequently than disadvantageous mutations, thats a pretty good claim and would pretty effectively put a hole in most theories of how natural selection operates if true.This should be a fairly easy thing to check out. Why don't be both have a look at the literature, I'll try and find some papers supporting my position that advantageous mutations are retained significantly more frequently and you try and find some supporting your position that they aren't. How does that sound? If you think there are any particular areas we should limit ourselves to let me know, if for instance you don't consider population genetic simulations to be a valid source of evidence for instance.TTFN,WK

I reply to serious comments in serious manner, and to statements like:

quote:

---

I duly note the inherent dishonesty in the very foundation of your argument...

---

in the manner you observed. Your choice.

quote:

---

So you are saying that advantageous mutations are not retained in populations significantly more frequently than disadvantageous mutations, thats a pretty good claim and would pretty effectively put a hole in most theories of how natural selection operates if true.

---

In real life, mutations which involve changes large enough to conceivably lead to new kinds of animals all have names, such as Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome etc. etc. Ever notice the women going door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research aimed at eliminating mutations, and not for research aimed at causing them? Think there might be a reason for that?Other than that, the amounts of time it would take to spread ANY kinds of mutations, "beneficial" or otherwise, around our planet sufficiently to create our present biosphere has been shown to be impossible, i.e. to involve trillions to quadrillions of years and not the 4 billion which is claimed or the million or so which is likely the reality of the situation:http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/default_old.html

quote:

---

In real life, mutations which involve changes large enough to conceivably lead to new kinds of animals...

---

But no modern day biologists claim that new species result from single mutations. Such events are called saltations, and aren’t part of modern evolutionary biology. You’re throwing some pretty big accusations around, but seem to have no idea what it is your attacking.
Speciation happens due to genetic differences accruing between two populations that are isolated for sometime (for instance living on different islands) so not able to mate, and mix there genes. After some time even if the two populations were brought back together they are so different that they could not produce viable offspring so are considered different species. Here's a couple of journal abstracts about evidence for this process at a molecular level: Abstract number 1
Abstract number 2

quote:

---

Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research aimed at eliminating mutations, and not for research aimed at causing them? Think there might be a reason for that?

---

Obvioulsly most detectable mutations are going to be deleterious. Again no one ever claims anything over that that to be true. All that NS needs is that some mutation will lead to an organism being better adapted to its environment and as a result out compete the rest of the population and as a result generate more children with the trait. Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations.

quote:

---

ther than that, the amounts of time it would take to spread ANY kinds of mutations, "beneficial" or otherwise, around our planet sufficiently to create our present biosphere has been shown to be impossible

---

The arguments in the website you linked to are just wilfully stupid. (for those that haven’t read it the author claims that since there are 3 billion base pairs in the human genome that it must have mutated at almost 1 bp per year since the beginning of life) He ignores the v fact that over half our genome is derived from LINE and Alu elements — mobile DNA that copies itself in the genome, thousands of bases at a time. Or that duplication of chromosomes and even whole genomes has been shown to occur. Other than that the author presents an argument from incredulity with nothing so boring as evidence or even bad calculations to get in the way of him airing his prejudices.