"Non-random survival"?
In a couple threads Thought Provoker provided the following quote from Richard Dawkins:
What is "non-random survival"? Even Charles Darwin understood the "importance" chance plays in survival. Accidents happen. Random events occur in nature. So what is Dawkins talking about?
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:
"Replicators"- Living organisms require much more than replication, which is an issue unto itself. To replicate a strand of DNA (or RNA) one requires nucleotides, which do not occur outside of living organisms. Many nucleotides are required and in four flavors. But not only is replication required but the same strand that replicates also needs to provide functioning proteins and enzymes.
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
What is "non-random survival"? Even Charles Darwin understood the "importance" chance plays in survival. Accidents happen. Random events occur in nature. So what is Dawkins talking about?
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:
Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.(bold added)
Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver’s study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches. Two correlations are at issue. The first is linear, and corresponds to what in population genetics is called directional selection; and the second quadratic, and corresponds either to stabilizing or disruptive selection. These are the cornerstones of the modern hill and valley model of much of mathematical population genetics. Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection, and a median absolute value of 0.10 for quadratic selection. Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection, and 10 percent in the case of quadratic selection. These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak’s finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population’s fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.
"Replicators"- Living organisms require much more than replication, which is an issue unto itself. To replicate a strand of DNA (or RNA) one requires nucleotides, which do not occur outside of living organisms. Many nucleotides are required and in four flavors. But not only is replication required but the same strand that replicates also needs to provide functioning proteins and enzymes.
posted by Joe G @ 9:18 AM
31 Comments:
At 11:07 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g quoting: "Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver’s study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches."
It always amazes me when IDers consistently cite experts who strongly disagree with them. So, why was the correlation of environmental selection low in Kingsolver's results [emphasis mine]?
Kingsolver: "The strength of selection is key to understanding evolution and adaptation in nature. Our study has three findings of broad significance for our understanding of evolution. First, we now have an abundance of evidence documenting selection in nature in many different species. In many species selection has the potential to cause substantial evolution during our lifetimes, over the time scale of years to decades. So our understanding of selection and evolution goes far beyond familiar examples such as industrial melanism in moths and Darwin's finches. Second, our analyses indicated that sexual selection—e.g. selection resulting from differences in mating success—is typically stronger than natural selection with selection resulting from differences in survival. We sometimes associate selection and evolution with phrases such as 'the struggle for existence' and 'the survival of the fittest'. Our results suggest that it may be more appropriate talk about 'the struggle for mates' and 'the mating of the sexiest'. Third, we found little evidence for optimizing selection; we would expect abundant evidence of optimizing selection if organisms are optimally 'designed' in nature. This is surprising, and will require new field studies that are specifically designed to detect this type of selection."
Imagine that. Kingsolver believes his results clearly support evolution, but finds that sexual selection is more important than environmental selection, and that further studies are required to determine the effects of optimizing selection.
At 2:24 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
I would rather focus on comparing and contrasting just our two proposals, but if you want Dawkin's proposal to the mix, I don't mind as long as we clearly identify what is what...
JOE'S proposal...
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
DAVE'S proposal...
1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).
2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.
3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occured via natural processes.
4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")
5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of natural processes such as natural selection, random variation and mutation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms. These processes are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.
DAWKIN'S proposal...
1)Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
Joe is asking for a further explaination of terms. Specifically "non-random survival". I will look into that.
Meanwhile, I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It always amazes me when IDers consistently cite experts who strongly disagree with them.
I don't care about the alleged "experts" but I do care about their data. Experst can be deceived by their pre-conceived biases. Data is not so inclined.
The data shows that natural selection is really not all that relevant. My following post why demonstrate why.
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
Joe is asking for a further explaination of terms. Specifically "non-random survival". I will look into that.
I have already started:
The NCSE provides a link to the following:
Natural Selection
Second, it’s more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem.
(note the “mindless”; “it has no goals”)
Can something be both a process and a result? The following equation they provide shows it is a result of a process:
variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection
And then they wonder why the public gets confused.
This is why “need,” “try,” and “want” are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not “want” or “try” to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism “needs.” Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
Nature (just) selects- that’s why it’s called natural selection. When we do the selecting it’s called artificial selection. OK so nature selects the variants and the result is evolution. And if the organism does drive the variations and nature still does the selecting, what do we call that? Oh that’s right- EAM. But anyway
At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Right it’s the result of random inputs. But wait, that would pretty much make it random also. D’oh!
Reading that site and its “Explore Further” sub-topics on NS, is good evidence against common descent- a cheetah can’t “evolve” stronger bone structure yet fully aquatic mammals can “evolve” from fully terrestrial mammals. Yeah right…
Main Entry: 1pro•cess
Pronunciation: 'prä-"ses, 'prO-, -s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pro•cess•es /-"se-s&z, -s&-, -"sEz/
Etymology: Middle English proces, from Anglo-French procés, from Latin processus, from procedere
1 a : PROGRESS, ADVANCE (in the process of time) b : something going on : PROCEEDING
2 a (1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result (the process of growth) (2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function (such life processes as breathing) b : a series of actions or operations conducing to an end; especially : a continuous operation or treatment especially in manufacture
3 a : the whole course of proceedings in a legal action b : the summons, mandate, or writ used by a court to compel the appearance of the defendant in a legal action or compliance with its orders
4 : a prominent or projecting part of an organism or organic structure (a bone process) (a nerve cell process)
5 : 6CONK (bold added in definition 2)
At 10:34 AM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe, it appears that you just can't resist defining things for the other side. I will get to the "non-random survival" explanation later in the post. It would be nice if you avoid the appearance of employing a double standard and talk about the "information content" part of your proposal. I will repeat...
Meanwhile, I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
Now to Dawkins' "non-random survival". I felt Dawkins would be a good source for explaining Dawkins. Unfortunately, his explanation is spread out over the internet in a fashion that makes it difficult to just provide a link or two. I suspect his books are the best sources, but I do not have ready access to them.
I think the most important thing for understanding Dawkins to realize that his definition of "life" includes things that other people would consider "non-living".
Anything that replicates has the potential (per Dawkins) of being life. Stars explode and form new stars. Rust causes more rust. Viruses make more viruses.
But replication is only part of Dawkins' definition of life. The replication process has to include "randomly varying replicators". This is why rust doesn't count as life, there is no randomness in the replication process. Stars and viruses, on the other hand, have "randomly varying replicators". Note, this does not mean that the replication process is totally random, it just has randomizing elements to it.
This brings us to the last part of Dawkins' definition. The "non-random survival" of the above mentioned replicators. Note, this isn't necessarily about the survival of individuals or, even, populations. This is about the persistence (i.e. "survival") of replicators. This is where Stars fail as being classified as life. The randomized replicators of Stars don't survive past a single generation.
Dawkins firmly categorizes viruses as life because they include "...the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
While I believe the NCSE provided a good explanation of this, I don't want to get bogged down in how you misinterpreted it. So, I am offering the above as what I understand Dawkins meant by his explanation.
I am looking forward to hearing your explanation to what you meant by "information content".
At 11:17 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The data shows that natural selection is really not all that relevant."
The study you quote-mined indicates that natural selection is important, but not as important as sexual selection.
joe g: "Right it’s the result of random inputs. But wait, that would pretty much make it random also."
Absolutely not, as your own cite indicates. If we roll a die and always select a six, then the result is not random. More complex examples can be found in evolutionary computation.
At 6:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
Joe, it appears that you just can't resist defining things for the other side.
Now what are you talking about? I used Dawkins' definition for "the blind watchmaker thesis" and now I am employing a site linked to and supported by the NCSE.
If you are going to accuse me of something back up your accusation.
Also until I get a good explanation of "non-random survival" which appears to be total nonsense, what good is it for me to try to discuss a more complex matter like information content?
And until you can show how I misinterpretted anything I will have to assume you don't know what you are talking about. And again that is a discussion killer.
and this is a gem:
Dawkins firmly categorizes viruses as life because they include "...the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
We already know that "non-random survival" is nonsense and does this mean that if living organisms did not randomly vary during replication that Dawkins wouldn't classify it as "life"?
At 7:47 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "We already know that "non-random survival" is nonsense ..."
We know no such thing. Natural selection can be directly observed in everything from bacteria in Petri dishes to guppies in the wild.
joe g: "... and does this mean that if living organisms did not randomly vary during replication that Dawkins wouldn't classify it as "life"?"
All replication is necessarily imperfect and subject to error.
At 8:22 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
I wrote...
"Joe, it appears that you just can't resist defining things for the other side."
Joe responded with...
"Now what are you talking about? I used Dawkins' definition for "the blind watchmaker thesis" and now I am employing a site linked to and supported by the NCSE.
If you are going to accuse me of something back up your accusation"
I am your debate opponent, not the NCSE. You asked for further explaination of my definition. I provided it. I asked you for further explaination of your terms, you chose to ignore my request.
Instead, you decided to tell me what I meant and then started arguing against it.
I have reluctantly agreed to try and defend Dawkins' position, but I am not going to defend whatever you decide Dawkins meant.
I have no problem with what NCSE stated, but that is not the point. If we are debating on a level playing field, you need to either let me make my own explanations or you get to start defending Of Pandas and People.
Joe asked...
"...does this mean that if living organisms did not randomly vary during replication that Dawkins wouldn't classify it as "life"?"
Please reread my explaination. I gave the example of rust as something that does "not randomly vary during replication". IMO, Dawkins would not consider rust, life.
If you are still having problems with MY explaination of "non-random survival", please let me know.
I am still waiting for your explaination of Information Content. Let me repeat my request...
I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
I thought my questions were quite straight forward. Is there any confusion about them?
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "We already know that "non-random survival" is nonsense ..."
Zachriel:
We know no such thing.
YOU probably don't because you refuse to accept reality.
Zachriel:
Natural selection can be directly observed in everything from bacteria in Petri dishes to guppies in the wild.
But as I have already shown natural selection depends on there random inputs which makes it random also.
joe g: "... and does this mean that if living organisms did not randomly vary during replication that Dawkins wouldn't classify it as "life"?"
Zachriel:
All replication is necessarily imperfect and subject to error.
It is also subject to error correction.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
I am your debate opponent, not the NCSE.
I don't know if you are my or a debate opponet or not. I debate against the "blind watchmaker thesis" and you try to deny it exists or that is has any meaning or even worse that I made it up.
Thought Provoker:
You asked for further explaination of my definition. I provided it.
So far all of your attempts at explaining your position have failed.
Thought Provoker:
Instead, you decided to tell me what I meant and then started arguing against it.
Perhaps what you meant is in contradiction to those who really matter. IOW what you mean contradicts reality.
Thought Provoker:
I have reluctantly agreed to try and defend Dawkins' position, but I am not going to defend whatever you decide Dawkins meant.
LOL! You "tried" by providing a vague and worthless definition of "evolution". But as I have already stated "evolution" is NOT being debated. What is being debated is "the blind watchmaker thesis".
Now if you do not hold to that thesis then what is there to debate?
And also I have shown that "non-random survival" is nonsense. Nonsense because the 3 inputs are random, therefore the output is also random as it depends directly on the inputs.
At 10:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Thought Provoker:
This brings us to the last part of Dawkins' definition. The "non-random survival" of the above mentioned replicators. Note, this isn't necessarily about the survival of individuals or, even, populations. This is about the persistence (i.e. "survival") of replicators.
Right and replicators, all of them, can get wiped out by random events. Therefore "non-random survival" is total BS.
And as I said living organisms require much more than replicators and viruses canNOT live and reproduce without a host. That is why most learned people do NOT classify them as living organisms.
At 12:14 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe wrote...
"Right and replicators, all of them, can get wiped out by random events. Therefore "non-random survival" is total BS."
It sounds like you are understanding what Dawkins is saying, you just disagree with it.
I will gladly debate what the evidence shows once we avoid the "double standard" of having me define my terms while you avoid defining yours.
I still wish a definition of your term "information content". Let me repeat my request...
I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
At 12:33 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe wrote...
"Right and replicators, all of them, can get wiped out by random events. Therefore "non-random survival" is total BS."
It sounds like you are understanding what Dawkins is saying, you just disagree with it.
I will gladly debate what the evidence shows once we avoid the "double standard" of having me define my terms while you avoid defining yours.
I still wish a definition of your term "information content". Let me repeat my request...
I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?
At 6:15 PM,
Thought Provoker said…
Joe wrote...
"That is why most learned people do NOT classify them as living organisms."
I will apologize up front for this, but I just couldn't let it pass. TWO logical fallacies in one sentence!
No true Scottsman
...and...
Appeal to authority
Impressive.
At 9:13 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "But as I have already shown natural selection depends on there random inputs which makes it random also."
I guess we'll just have to add random distributions to the things you don't understand.
Natural selection is not random. This non-random result can be directly observed. A simple example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. A more complex example would be colorful adaptations by fish to avoid predation while attracting mates. These results can be predicted based on known laws concerning population dynamics.
joe g: "It is also subject to error correction."
This doesn't change the fact that all replication is necessarily subject to error — regardless of encoding scheme — regardless of error correction algorithm. This is a fundamental principle of information theory.
At 9:18 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "You 'tried' by providing a vague and worthless definition of 'evolution'."
Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution, including mutation, variation, environmental selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, speciation, hybridization, contingency, common descent, etc.
Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ....
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Natural selection is not random.
I have already shown that it is random. Do you not understand that three random inputs also makes the output random?
Zachriel:
This non-random result can be directly observed. A simple example would be the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Wouldn't antibiotic resistance be an example of artificial selection? Yes it would because man, not nature operating freely, designed the antibiotic and introduced it to a slected population.
joe g: "You 'tried' by providing a vague and worthless definition of 'evolution'."
Zachriel:
Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
That is vague and worthless also.
Zachriel:
A more complex example would be colorful adaptations by fish to avoid predation while attracting mates.
I would love to read the peer-reviewed papaer that demonstrates those colorful adaptations arose via sheer-dumb-luck, ie random mutations/ variations culled by NS.
These results can be predicted based on known laws concerning population dynamics.
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Dan Dennett tells us, and the scientifc community agrees, that we cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
If natural selection were truly non-random a) he wouldn't be making that statement and b) the scientific community wouldn't agree with him.
As for sexual selection, seeing that evolutionism didn't predict sexual reproduction and that sexual reproduction actually makes it more difficult to pass on any beneficial mutation or variation, anyone who tries to use it in favor of evolutionism is really out of touch with reality.
That Kingsolver thinks his results support evolution is meaningless as evolution isn't being debated.
At 1:30 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I have already shown that it is random. Do you not understand that three random inputs also makes the output random?"
Natural selection is not random, no matter how often you make the claim. If colonies of bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, those that happen to have resistance to the particular antibiotics will leave more descendents. This is a predictable and non-random consequence.
joe g: "Wouldn't antibiotic resistance be an example of artificial selection?"
It happens in nature as well as in laboratories.
Zachriel: Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
joe g: "That is vague and worthless also."
Not only is it not vague, but it can be empirically and quantitatively measured.
joe g: "I would love to read the peer-reviewed papaer that demonstrates those colorful adaptations arose via sheer-dumb-luck, ie random mutations/ variations culled by NS."
Reznick 1997. Please note that the study provided a quantitative result.
joe g: "These results can be predicted based on known laws concerning population dynamics."
Well, certainly the understanding of population dynamics is an important component of the modern Theory of Evolution.
joe g: "we cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time."
This is not universally correct. We can't always predict the behavior of complex systems with many interacting factors, but it is more than possible to make various predictions concerning the parameters of possible change, or to isolate the various interacting factors.
joe g: "If natural selection were truly non-random"
There is no difference in mathematics between non-random and "truly non-random".
joe g: "As for sexual selection, seeing that evolutionism didn't predict sexual reproduction ..."
Huh? Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. In any case, what Darwin may have known is not directly relevant to the modern understanding of biological evolution.
joe g: "That Kingsolver thinks his results support evolution is meaningless as evolution isn't being debated."
So the scientist you cited to support your assertion that environmental selection has limited effect on evolution is no longer competent when the very same study states that sexual selection is the primary mechanism.
At 8:31 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I have already shown that it is random. Do you not understand that three random inputs also makes the output random?"
Zachriel:
atural selection is not random, no matter how often you make the claim.
You have failed to show that NS is non-random while I have shown that it is.
"CHANCE ALONE," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."
The sentiment expressed by these words has come to vex evolutionary biologists. "This belief," Richard Dawkins writes, "that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth." But Monod is right and Dawkins wrong. Chance lies at the beating heart of evolutionary theory, just as it lies at the beating heart of thermodynamics." David Berlinski in The Deniable Darwin
Zachriel:
If colonies of bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, those that happen to have resistance to the particular antibiotics will leave more descendents. This is a predictable and non-random consequence.
That is NOT natural selection. That is artificial selection.
joe g: "Wouldn't antibiotic resistance be an example of artificial selection?"
Zachriel:
It happens in nature as well as in laboratories.
Really? Show us nature, operating freely, developing antibiotics and then placing those antibiotics in a colony of bacteria.
joe g: "I would love to read the peer-reviewed papaer that demonstrates those colorful adaptations arose via sheer-dumb-luck, ie random mutations/ variations culled by NS."
Zachriel:
Reznick 1997. Please note that the study provided a quantitative result.
I doubt Reznick demonstrated the mutaions/ variations were random. Heck the Grants couldn't even do that for the beak of the finch.
Zachriel: Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
joe g: "That is vague and worthless also."
Zachriel:
Not only is it not vague, but it can be empirically and quantitatively measured.
Perhaps but that does nothing to resolve the debate. It also does nothing to support your claim of common descent. That is why it is vague and worthless.
joe g: "we cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time."
Zachriel:
This is not universally correct.
I would say that it is.
Zachriel:
We can't always predict the behavior of complex systems with many interacting factors, but it is more than possible to make various predictions concerning the parameters of possible change, or to isolate the various interacting factors.
Most if not all the interacting factors are random. And it is obvious you are blowing smoke.
joe g: "If natural selection were truly non-random"
Zachriel:
There is no difference in mathematics between non-random and "truly non-random".
You have problems, that much is obvious.
joe g: "As for sexual selection, seeing that evolutionism didn't predict sexual reproduction ..."
Zachriel:
Huh? Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.
What a joke. Just because Darwin wrote about it does NOT mean evolutionism predicted sexual reproduction. Not one evolutionitwit has explained sexual reproduction in a scientific manner.
Sexual selection diminishes the chance for even the most beneficial variation of getting passed on. That is a fact of science and life. Natural selection is basically meaningless, according to the study, and even more so when considering populations over 1000.
At 12:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Really? Show us nature, operating freely, developing antibiotics and then placing those antibiotics in a colony of bacteria."
I'm simply astonished. Did you think that antibiotics were first invented by humans?
Penicillin, the first antibiotic discovered, is a natural product of molds to protect themselves from invading microbes. This is a typical case of biological evolution.
At 7:21 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Sexual selection diminishes the chance for even the most beneficial variation of getting passed on."
Amusing.
You own cited expert disagrees and provides the data to contradict your stance.
At 8:31 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Sexual selection diminishes the chance for even the most beneficial variation of getting passed on."
Zachriel:
Amusing.
That's reality for ya.
Zachriel:
You own cited expert disagrees and provides the data to contradict your stance.
Reality refutes any and everyone that disagrees with what I posted. Science has demonstrated that even the most beneficial mutation/ variation will get lost in a population due to the mixing of traits that occurs with sexual reproduction. IOW if the male has a beneficial trait and the female does not there is only something like a 20% chance (or less) that their sole offspring. Obviously the odds of passing on that beneficial trait increases with more offspring. But it is obvious to all that understand sexual reproduction that the chances of getting a trait from either parent are much less than if asexual reproduction were at play.
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Really? Show us nature, operating freely, developing antibiotics and then placing those antibiotics in a colony of bacteria."
Zachriel:
I'm simply astonished. Did you think that antibiotics were first invented by humans?
Penicillin, the first antibiotic discovered, is a natural product of molds to protect themselves from invading microbes. This is a typical case of biological evolution.
You didn't answer the question. I specifically asked you to show nature operating freely placing said anti-biotic in a colony of bacteria.
At 12:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: " I specifically asked you to show nature operating freely placing said anti-biotic in a colony of bacteria."
I know you think you are making sense, but you must be talking in some secret language. Molds and bacteria exist in nature, often in the same environment, especially as some bacteria feed on molds. Some molds have developed defenses to these predators. Try looking closely at nature. You might be surprised what you can observe.
At 5:02 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: " I specifically asked you to show nature operating freely placing said anti-biotic in a colony of bacteria."
Zachriel:
I know you think you are making sense, but you must be talking in some secret language. Molds and bacteria exist in nature, often in the same environment, especially as some bacteria feed on molds. Some molds have developed defenses to these predators. Try looking closely at nature. You might be surprised what you can observe.
If molds developed defenses to any predators that would refute evolutionism. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
So if I was in a 100 sq.mile swamp- the same environmet- and observed bacteria in one acre and molds in another- I have not observed molds placing themselves into the bacteria. Neither even knows of the other's existence.
At 9:19 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "If molds developed defenses to any predators that would refute evolutionism."
As this is a standard prediction of the Theory of Evolution, and we we can directly observe the process of mutation and environmental selection, this would be exactly backwards.
joe g: "I have not observed molds placing themselves into the bacteria."
Most children learn that bit of biology by the sixth grade. Take a bit of pond scum. Put it under a microscope. You will see a multitude of competing organisms. Depending on the pond, they may be bacteria, algae, mold, protists, all sorts. And yes, mold and bacteria are often found together, and bacteria do eat mold.
--
You've still never corrected your claim concerning Kingsolver's research.
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "If molds developed defenses to any predators that would refute evolutionism."
Zachriel:
As this is a standard prediction of the Theory of Evolution, and we we can directly observe the process of mutation and environmental selection, this would be exactly backwards.
As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Ya see first the mold gets a mutation which may offer a defense to certain bacteria. If the mold developed it in response to the bacteria it would be a directed mutation.
joe g: "I have not observed molds placing themselves into the bacteria."
Zachriel:
Most children learn that bit of biology by the sixth grade.
Then what is your problem?
Zachriel:
Take a bit of pond scum. Put it under a microscope. You will see a multitude of competing organisms. Depending on the pond, they may be bacteria, algae, mold, protists, all sorts. And yes, mold and bacteria are often found together, and bacteria do eat mold.
But the mold won't kill the bacteria either. IOW if the bacteria stays away from the mold what selection process is involved? Both populations remain.
Zachriel:
You've still never corrected your claim concerning Kingsolver's research.
What's to correect? The research shows that NS is virtually non-existant and we know that sexual selection conserves the norm because not all genetic material from one parent gets passed on. Therefore even the most beneficial of traits has a better chance of getting lost than it does of becoming fixed.
At 11:52 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Ya see first the mold gets a mutation which may offer a defense to certain bacteria."
That's correct. Mutations generally occur without regard to fitness. However, those mutations which confer an advantage are more likely to be propagated into future generations.
joe g: "But the mold won't kill the bacteria either. IOW if the bacteria stays away from the mold what selection process is involved? Both populations remain."
In many environments, molds that are resistant to being ingested by populations of bacteria are more likely to survive to the next generation.
joe g: "The research shows that NS is virtually non-existant and we know that sexual selection conserves the norm because not all genetic material from one parent gets passed on."
Your cited expert disagrees. He detects the signal of environmental selection and an even stronger signal of sexual selection. You want to accept half his finding and reject the other half — even though they are from the same study and methodology.
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
However, those mutations which confer an advantage are more likely to be propagated into future generations.
I know the drill. However the cired study demonstrates what you are referring to accounts for only 16% of the change and that 16% vanishes in populations over 1000.
Zachriel:
In many environments, molds that are resistant to being ingested by populations of bacteria are more likely to survive to the next generation.
Survive as a mold until something else comes along and wipes it out.
joe g: "The research shows that NS is virtually non-existant and we know that sexual selection conserves the norm because not all genetic material from one parent gets passed on."
Zachriel:
Your cited expert disagrees. He detects the signal of environmental selection and an even stronger signal of sexual selection.
Environmental selection, ie natural selection is virtually non-existant by the study and vanshes with populations over 1000. Sexual selection serves variation but the norm is preserved. IOW populations of humans remain human; bacteria remain bacteria and finches remain finches despite the variations.
Post a Comment
<< Home