Questioning The Evolutionary Process

How could that happen? They're random, remember. Although there are hotspots and coldspots in the genome, which would make exact calculations difficult, I doubt if any two individuals in our entire generation, even considering our large modern population, would have received the exact same 100 new mutations.And if you took two individuals at random, it's unlikely that they would share even one from the 200 they have between them, although they would have overlaps with plenty of others in the world. It sounds as though most of the genome would have mutated somewhere in a generation of 1 billion individuals, but I've probably got something very wrong.Edited by bluegenes, : missing quote

That's good scientific reasoning, is it? If Darwinists started calling creationists "darling", presumably you'd change your alignment. Perhaps "Darwinists" would be more respectful of critics of the Theory of Evolution if they would back up their criticism with evidence for their preferred alternatives.We're weird, that way. We tend to go by evidence, not what someone calls someone, when we make our decisions about what are or are not strong scientific theories.

Intelligently and purposefully? Consciously, that must mean. Does the process get wiped from memory, then? Otherwise, those nasty Darwinists, and everyone else, would know about it, wouldn't they?

Greed, consumer cultures, and applying technology for commercial gain at a point when there's still not much knowledge of the science behind it. Just some suggestions. Human faults, not really "philosophical notions". What is this philosophical assumption? People who think that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution do so from observation and because of the evidence. As individuals, they have a wide variety of philosophies. The Theory of Evolution has to fit evidence, not anyone's philosophy.The industrial revolution, the beginning of the really serious environmental problems you describe above, was well under way before Darwin's birth, let alone the publication of "Origins".Welcome to EvC.

I think you're confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Many of the supporters of evolutionary theory are not atheists. There are quite a few regulars on this site who believe in a God who created a universe in which biological evolution happens.Methodological naturalism (science) deals with the physical universe, but does not assume that that is all there is. If there's such a thing as the human soul, for example, no-one is claiming that it is the product of random mutation and natural selection. Just the body.I'm an atheist myself, but that's not because I think that science has disproved the possibility of Gods. It hasn't. You can easily observe natural selection taking place in the wild. Watch deer rutting, and you'll see that the healthiest males sire the most offspring, for example. I assure you that on this site there are theists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists and deists all defending the theory of evolution. Lucky we've got environmentally and spiritually concerned leaders like G.W. Bush to lead us out of the mess, isn't it?Actually, the most religious country in the west is the one which produces the most pollution per. head of population. It also has the highest murder rate.The "Darwinian approach to evolutionary biology", as you call it, requires no philosophical assumptions. Darwin was a Christian when he started his observations, and was probably not a full blown atheist when he finished his life. His friend Huxley was an agnostic (he invented the term) and Wallace finished his life with an interest in spiritualism, so was clearly not a metaphysical naturalist. The other important 19th century figure whose work led to the modern synthesis was Mendel, who finished his life as the abbot of his monastery.Anyone can practise methodological naturalism excepting those who have a literal belief in any of the ancient creation mythologies which describe fictional universes.

I'm happy to call you old-fashioned.From dictionary.com:

quote:

---

se·lec·tion /slk‘n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-lek-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice.
2. a thing or a number of things selected.
3. an aggregate of things displayed for choice, purchase, use, etc.; a group from which a choice may be made: The store had a wide selection of bracelets.
4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in differential reproduction among the members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations. Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial selection.
5. Linguistics. a. the choice of one form instead of another in a position where either can occur, as of ask instead of tell or with in the phrase ask me.
b. the choice of one semantic or syntactic class of words in a construction, to the exclusion of others that do not occur there, as the choice of an animate object for the verb surprise.

---

This thread is called:Science forums - Biological Evolution - Questioning The Evolutionary Process. We're talking biology here.You're certainly questioning the evolutionary process, which is fine, but please try not to use semantics to do so, unless you have an understanding of the ever changing nature of language and the meaning of words. It has to? To be replaced with what? A vague desire for magic?It's worth noting that much of the world does not suffer from materialism. Go to a very poor and struggling culture and you'll find very high levels of religious belief, accompanied by high levels of infant and child mortality, and low levels of life expectancy. This, presumably, is what you think the rest of us should aim for.Do you like seeing dead babies? Feel free to describe this evidence. You're demanding evidence for natural selection. It would be fascinating to see the evidence for "neo Lamarckism" that all those stupid biologists have failed to notice.In order for natural selection not to happen, the genomes of all individuals in a population group would have to give them exactly the same chances of survival. They would have to run at the same speed from predators, for example. Being short sighted would be no disadvantage in seeing the predator coming. Having the best eyesight in the group would have to be no advantage.Again: Do you agree that a species can transform into another species?If so, are you suggesting that organisms consciously decide in which direction they are going? I decided my children's hair colour and build? Or is it just that my experience in life in some way mysteriously influenced the genetic code in my sperm? How does this happen?Incidentally, I certainly share your concern about global warming.It's a material problem with material causes, and the potential solutions are material.

No. Why not? Because nature abhors a vacuum, for example, and the English language abhors attempts to pretend that words have fixed, literal meanings. There appears to be a rule in Elmerish, your personal language, that selection must be conscious, but there is no such rule in English.You can argue against me and the O. E. D. if you want to on another thread, but this one's about science.So far, it seems that your objections to the Theory of Evolution (the biology based one) seem to be about language use. There's no science in anything you've said in this thread. You seem to have the odd idea that maths shouldn't be used in science.Are we to take it that this is a position of neo-Lamarckism? Lamarck was all in favour of using numbers in science, so shouldn't you use someone else's name?And what is the evidence for neo-Lamarckism?

quote:

---

Crashfrog: Your understanding of evolution, if we can even call it "understanding" when you don't understand it at all, isn't archaic or supplanted; it's idiosyncratic.

---

Crashfrog is not insulting you personally. Judging from your posts here, his assessment of your understanding of evolution is reasonable.I suspect that it's much easier to tell yourself that you are an intellectual adult amongst insulting adolescents than it is to present scientific evidence for this mysterious thing called neo-Lamarckism. Prove me wrong.

What you'll be dealing with here will be semantics and philosophy, but don't expect any science (I doubt if you are!).The line is "I'm not a creationist, but materialism is wrong".Translation: The traditional play with words is to substitute "design" for "creation". Here we have a variation, which is only linguistic.So, evolution must have meaning, or purpose, or direction.Translation: So, you ignorant adolescent bio-chemist, trade in your car for a broomstick, because the New Age of neo-Lamarckism is here.

I've already given the biological dictionary definition in post 89.Here's the child's reply: Be warned, RAZD, that we should be speaking Elmerish, not English, in this particular schizophrenic's world.

You're using lots of words to mean things which are not actually their original meanings. Do you come from some bizarre religious sect which has a tenet that "selection" is the one word in the English language that must be used only in its original sense?Or do you try to use all words in their original sense? Why have you brought "quilted material worn under chain mail" into the discussion? That is the "original true" meaning of the word stuff.Could you either use all words with their original meanings, or write in modern English. Either one or the other, but be consistent.Nature is often described as if she has an active and even conscious role. This is because she can appear to behave like a person, not because anyone thinks she is one. Language is not strictly literal at all. Other inanimate things get the same treatment.NATURE EMPLOYS:Nature inanimate employs sweet sounds,
But animated nature sweeter still,
To soothe and satisfy the human ear.William CowperABHORS:Nature abhors a vacuum.Francois Rabelais (c. 1494-1553), French monk, humanist, satirist, physician.SENDS and LOVES:Nature is fine in love, and where ’t is fine,
It sends some precious instance of itself
After the thing it loves.William Shakespeare (1564-1616)INSTRUCTS:I did not obey your instructions. No. I conformed to the instructions of truth and Nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me.
Edmund Burke (1729-97)THEN FORGETS:Forget thee .
Never”
Till Nature, high and low, and great and small
Forgets herself, and all her loves and hates
Sink again into Chaos.Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892)And for Darwin, she selects.None of these people, obviously, meant to imply that there was a sentient being called "Mother Nature". Yet it seems to suit your purpose to pretend that one of them did.Why are you playing word games? Does showing the world that you have a naive understanding of language prove something about biology?

You've demonstrated nothing logically or linguistically. In the English language, words like select and choose do not automatically mean sentience on the part of the selector or chooser.A stream can choose its course, and nature can select, love, hate, abhor, instruct and do many other things, in English. On this site, we use English, not Elmerish.Whether you know it or not, the reason you're playing word games is that there's no evidence for this "theory" that you call neo-Lamarkism. You haven't presented any, and you won't, will you?Show me I'm wrong.

I participated in the thread at various points, but can't remember too much about it. I knew at the time that rates of mutation vary on different parts of the genome, and I can't see how that would stir things up. But I hope it does. We don't want to get bored on this site.It certainly makes sense for the rate of mutation to be high in the immune system area, as variety within the population would increase the chances of a species surviving an attack by a new pathogen.The main thing I remember on this thread was someone claiming that the phrase "natural selection" somehow implies sentience behind the process of evolution. It was pretty silly!Welcome to EvC.