Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 276 (115590)
06-16-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Syamsu
06-15-2004 12:56 PM


Lets see now. You are trying to say that all Scientific theories are rqual, but some are more equal than others? It frankly seems like your understanding of how the Scientific Method works is somewhat deficient. That Evolution has a Scientific Theory to explain the process means that explanatory model has been evaluated through the Scientific Method and found valid as the best descriptor of the process. One Scientific Theory is not better than another. The very fact of them being Scientific Theories makes them equally valid and supported. So that claim is outright nonsense.
[I am not lying, since what I say is true. The literal meaning of the words you use indicate individuals evolving.]
Hmm, so you are saying that because YOU interpreted something, it MUST be a fact? OK, that's the usual creationist idea that wishful thinking is equal to evidence. That is still a lame idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Syamsu, posted 06-15-2004 12:56 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Syamsu, posted 06-16-2004 2:57 AM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 276 (117363)
06-21-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Syamsu
06-21-2004 1:01 PM


quote:
It has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics also apply to a population of organisms/traits not varying.
In which case the null is accepted, and you really don't have meaningful data.
quote:
Your theory is not individual at base it requires a pairing of variants, as also commented in articles about Darwinism.
SIGH! I have followed this for awhile, and you seem incapable, or more likely unwilling to accept that inheritable traits certainly can be individual, and that it is inherited into individuals who then either may reproduce or not, as natural selection sorts it out.
This is rather BASIC science here, and I really hope that you actually understands it. Otherwise, you really don't have much foundation for criticizing the Scientific Theory of Evolution.
quote:
quote:
"The paper arguably says that instances of neutral selection should be seen as part of Natural selection"
That is the same bloody thing as equating them.
Really? Where did you get that idea. To claim that neutral selections is a subset of natural selection is NOT the same as equating them. Prime Numbers are a subset of all numbers. Are all numbers therefore prime numbers? Red cars are a subset of all cars. Does that mean that all cars are red? And so on.
Do you begin to see how silly that argument of yours is sounding?
quote:
Gee, now you fall back to saying that the environment testing the organism in terms of fitness to reproduce, can't be built up to comparing variants in terms of fitness to reproduce.
Really? That certainly is not what I got out of it. Would you mind actually demonstrating where this occured, rather than just claiming this?
quote:
It's totally ridiculous. You use the simple theory twice, one time for each variant, and divide the results.
Another claim that really seems weird. Again, can you actually document this postulation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Syamsu, posted 06-21-2004 1:01 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 276 (120162)
06-29-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Syamsu
06-25-2004 6:49 AM


quote:
Natural selection and neutral selection are equated in meaning, they now both mean natural selection, where before they were construed as separate forces.
Your claim is still false. They are NOT "equated." Rather, as you are using them, "neutral selection" is at best a SUB-GROUP of natural selection. The claim of their equality is bogous.
quote:
Theoretically most all mutations which give an advantage get wiped out, because they have to compete with a greater number of non-mutants at the start.
More nonsense. A mutation that is ADVANTAGEOUS will outcompete the non-mutated alleles and spread in the population.
quote:
That is the second hurdle advantageous mutations face, the first being to arise randomly from a set of possible mutations which are almost all deleterious.
Another false claim. "almost all" mutations are neutral, not deleterious. As for the "random" mutation, that is also a falsehood, but to your credit, it is a bit unclear what you mean, with the possibility that you mean that all mutations are equal and that which one occurs is a "random chance"? That, of course, is also not quite true, as the mutation is a result of chemical binding forces, and as such, each mutation has a rather set likelihood of occuring, with some being more likely than others.
That aside, you are also ignoring the issue of what would happen if all possible mutations actually occurs. It would create such a diverse genome in a population that the species cohesiveness would start to disintegrate. Each individual would be to unique to really fit in with others, and you end up with individuals rather than a population.
quote:
What I am saying is that fundamentally we should look to organisms individually for what their fitness to reproduce is, in stead of looking comparitively between variants.
Each individual is exposed to the forces of Natural Selection, if that is what you mean, and either reproduce or not, depending on how fit they are comparative to their neighbor. But the EVOLUTION is based on the population.
quote:
Your false assumption that it is only sometimes that a disadvantaged variant get's to reproduce, where in fact it is actually most times that the advantaged variants get's wiped out, is I think a result of your failure to look at the individual fitness to reproduce.
I still think that claim is bogous. There is still no evidence that advantageous mutations get wiped out rather than get upregulated. You are talking about the individual's advantage, which directly contradicts your claim of the advantageous individuals being wiped out. Either you are expression yourself poorly here, or your argument doesn't make sense.
quote:
Of course Darwinists..
Who are the Darwinists? Are they the biological equivalents of the Wrightists or Da Vinciists of flying?
quote:
..have known that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times,..
Rather, most mutations fade out again in a population, but advantageous ones are more likely to make it. WHy are you trying to misrepresent scientific knowledge? Is your attack on Evolution based on misrepresentation of what Evolution is? In that case, what value does your argument have, other than evidence of creationist red herrings?
quote:
.. but it is not apparent by the structure of their theory.
Rather, the structure of the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not apparent by your claims about it.
quote:
And like this, there are many more deceptions that follow from making as fundamental a comparitive view between variants, in stead of an individual view in terms of fitness to reproduce. It is simply a matter of a straightforward structure of knowledge, as explained quite adequately in the thread numerous times IMO.
So how do you explain your claim that advantageous mutations must die out most of the time. If we look solely at the individuals, then one with an advantageous mutation will survive over one without that mutation. So your claim simply doesn't make sense.
Oh, and BTW, this is also what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually states. So really, what you argue AGAINST simply isn't evolution, so why do you bother?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Syamsu, posted 06-25-2004 6:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2004 7:21 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 276 (121900)
07-04-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Syamsu
07-03-2004 7:21 AM


quote:
They are equated, natural and neutral, as proposed by the paper now mean (from memory) differential retention of variation.. or something
And as such, that paper, if you relate it accurately, is outright wrong.
quote:
Should we now say that natural selection is a subgroup of natural selection, as you want to say that neutral selection is a subgroup of natural selection?
No, we should not, as there is no Natural Selection that is not Natural Selection. There is, however, lots of Natural Selcetion that is not Neutral Selection. Your inability to comprehend this point is puzzling.
quote:
If you have 1000 organisms of ancestor variant A, and 1 of the advantageous mutant B with a wopping 10 percent advantage, and typically 200 organisms in the population get to reproduce, then it is uh... (spare me the math) obviously unlikely that the advantageous organism will reproduce. Have you ever thought to look at this mathematically in your useless nay saying? How can you assert so strongly without doing the math?
Your incomprehension of math and statistics now stand aside your incomprehension of biological science. ANY of the organisms in your example are "unlikely" to reproduce. Each one only have a one-in-five likelihood of reproduction. However, if one of the individuals in the population does carry an advantage over its neighbor, then it is MORE likely to reproduce than its neighbor is.
The accurate math is to look at each trait and evaluate how likely each is to reproduce. The "B" is 10% more likely to reproduce, thus increases its precence roughly by 10% in each generation (pending, of course, the number of offspring. In your example, each paring would have to result in 10 offspring for a steady-state population). As such, F1 would be 10 B (one mates, none do not mate), 190 A and so on. In each generation, the B individuals are 10% more likely to mate than are the A individuals.
quote:
Maybe I should have said phenotypically expressed mutations are most all deleterious, this would have been more exact.
But given that some are beneficial, and given that deleterious mutations are selected against, while beneficial mutations are selected for, it still means that positive traits will spread in the population.
quote:
That's great that you see the "developmental" aspect of mutations, in stead of the randomness. However randomness is the standard theory of natural selection, and I can use the standard theory in criticizing it.
Randomness is NOT the "standard theory" of Natural Selection. Natural selection is about environmental conditions favoring beneficial mutations with a higher likelihood of having offspring. As such, your use of randomness is either rooted in ignorance or deception.
quote:
Natural Selection is not based on an individual it requires a pair of variants at at minimum to apply, the "forces" of natural selection therefore do not act on an individual, by definition. If natural selection applied to an individual then we could have a single individual and natural selection acting on it.
Your ignorance again is showing itself. If one individual has a traith that improves its ability to mate and have viable offspring, then that individual is more likely to get a mate and to pass on that trait. And that just happens to be what Natural Selection is all about. As such, your argument simply doesn't make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Syamsu, posted 07-03-2004 7:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 7:08 PM Steen has replied
 Message 226 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 2:10 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 276 (121912)
07-04-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
07-04-2004 7:08 PM


Re: Question for you????
Well, that wouldn't give you much of a mathematical predictor to go by, as far as I can see. On the other hand, I have been somewhat distanced from math since my college days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 7:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 8:13 PM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 276 (121921)
07-04-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
07-04-2004 8:13 PM


Re: Question for you????
Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, the post-hoc is obvious. If we see a change in a bacteria's ability to digest sugar, it is hard to see its advantage, until we suddenly note that it digests nylon instead, and thus have no competition on its food source.
There was one interesting experiment that I noted, where bacteria were grown on nutrient-poor media:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
(see #4, especially this part): "This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase"
With repeated experiements, the same kinds of mutations occured, even if not in the same order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 8:13 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Steen, posted 07-08-2004 12:21 AM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 276 (122009)
07-05-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 2:10 AM


Utter nonsense. Given that B is more competitive, it is harder to wipe out any B than any A. B is MORE likely to procreate than is A. You DO know that the same mutations are likely to occur time after time again, don't you? Even if B is once wiped out, because it is competitive, it is a given that it WILL dominate the population. Here is a site with examples you should take a look at:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 2:10 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 5:47 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 276 (122154)
07-05-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 5:47 AM


You didn't take a look at that example I linked to, did you? That showed the same mutations happen in repeated experiements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 5:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 3:51 PM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 276 (122334)
07-06-2004 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Syamsu
07-05-2004 3:51 PM


Eh? You claim to have read it but still post nonsense? Please go back and actually READ it to the point where you understand what happened in their experiment. Because you sure still seem to be off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2004 3:51 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Syamsu, posted 07-06-2004 1:58 PM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 276 (122490)
07-06-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Syamsu
07-06-2004 1:58 PM


quote:
You seem to have great difficulty in talking about this in general terms. You gave some references to some papers about repetitive mutations, now go and make general statements about the nature of mutations, or whatever your point is
Frankly, this leads me to feel that your comprehension of mutations is quite limited; certainly more limited than what is needed to have a discussion about it.
quote:
It is not nonsense to say that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, when, well they do,
Because YOU say so, apparently. You have said enough nonsense that I really don't take your word for anything anymore.
quote:
where you in stead make highly deceptive statements that it is a given that the advantaged will dominate, and whatnot, which is untrue most times.
And your evidence is?
quote:
So do advantageous mutations get wiped out most times?
No, they are just not that rare.
quote:
Do mutations repeat themselves normally within an appreciable timeframe?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Syamsu, posted 07-06-2004 1:58 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 3:58 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 276 (122659)
07-07-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Syamsu
07-07-2004 3:58 AM


quote:
They get wiped out most times, because advantageous mutations usually start out with small numbers.
True for ALL mutations, which by your logic should mean that NO mutations ever come to light. That kind of nonsense have been disproved long ago, so once again, you are encouraged to actually learn something about the field you are trying to study.
quote:
You obviously have to reference some papers that make general statements about mutations to support your dubious argument, not reference papers about particular cases of mutations, which may not be representative of mutations in general.
Are you deliberately LYING about me, or just trying for the Ad Hominem because you are losing out on real arguments for your already-disproven claims? I have made several references to specifics during my postings here, as well as having dealt with very basic principles of genetics. That you have decided to show that you never actually looked at any of the references NOR the basic texts in genetics, that merely demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.
This message has been edited by Steen, 07-07-2004 08:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 3:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 10:54 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 276 (122851)
07-08-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Steen
07-04-2004 8:51 PM


Re: Question for you????
This message has been edited by Steen, 07-07-2004 11:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Steen, posted 07-04-2004 8:51 PM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 276 (122852)
07-08-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Syamsu
07-07-2004 10:54 AM


Why the deceptions?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2004 10:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Syamsu, posted 07-08-2004 4:21 AM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 276 (123679)
07-11-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by redwolf
07-09-2004 7:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by redwolf, posted 07-09-2004 7:43 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 2:17 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 276 (123688)
07-11-2004 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by redwolf
07-11-2004 2:17 AM


And here is another prize post of nonsense
Is there ANYTHING of relevance in that post, or are you merely avoiding the issues raised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 2:17 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 9:56 AM Steen has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024