Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, December 10, 2010

Evolutionists, STILL Confused about Natural Selection

-
a repost because evotards are too chicken to face the facts:

All too often evolutionists say that natural selection is non-random.

But is it?

Well let's look at what natural selction is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet. But when one pulls back the curtain all you have is some dude with a twinkie in each hand and a big fatty standing by.

That's evolution for ya...

Next they will be telling us that all the books in the world are descended by modification from the last universal common document.

Ya see slight copying errors were introduced to the first document, an illiterate population didn't know, so those bad copies were allowed to stay in the population.

Then those bad copies were copied and more errors introduced- and here we are.

It was all one author and many copying errors...


The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

Thanks for the honesty Will.

Natural selection is an after-the-fact statistic. Not only that you can't tell if natural selection was involved! It is all after-the-fact guess-work.

13 Comments:

  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    wow!I never knew about Provine.I'll have to look him up online. Evos don't mention him.They like to bring up Dawkins.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dawkins is one who sez natural selection is non-random.

    Doesn't provide any reasoning just sez it.

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Didn't Dawkins say aliens started life on Earth?

     
  • At 11:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He said he is OK with that because those aliens had evolved via blind watchmaker-type processes.

    IOW regression leads to the blind watchmaker- that is in Dawkins' (and others) opinion(s).

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Dawkins. Ah, what a genius. We should name Mt.Improbable after him.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Mt Improbable- home of Poof the Magic Mutant.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Sheikh said…

    Hey Joe,

    The word "random" has a number of different definitions. Which definition are you using here?

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the OP:

    The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

    Also, random:

    lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Sheikh said…


    lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern


    Ok, let's go with that. Now obviously Dawkins in particular doesn't believe that natural selection serves any plan or purpose, but he does claim it produces patterns in the population by favoring certain individuals over others. Like if a tick actually was born with a mutation that allowed it to survive and reproduce on a diet of watermelon, it could have greater fitness than normal ticks in certain environments. Over time, the proportion of watermelon-eating ticks in the population would likely increase if the supply of blood was restricted.

    Do you accept that this hypothetical example of watermelon-eating ticks would be an example of non-random natural selection?

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Shiek:
    Now obviously Dawkins in particular doesn't believe that natural selection serves any plan or purpose, but he does claim it produces patterns in the population by favoring certain individuals over others.

    Except NS doesn't favor anything. Organisms survive for many reasons.

    So what pattern does it produce?

    Like if a tick actually was born with a mutation that allowed it to survive and reproduce on a diet of watermelon, it could have greater fitness than normal ticks in certain environments.

    It could, but then again perhaps it couldn't.

    Over time, the proportion of watermelon-eating ticks in the population would likely increase if the supply of blood was restricted.

    Maybe, maybe not. For example say that chickens were in that watermelon patch- or finches- both eat ticks.

    Do you accept that this hypothetical example of watermelon-eating ticks would be an example of non-random natural selection?

    No because the outcome- NS- is STILL dependent on random inputs- also the ticks need a mutation that would allow them to not only live & reproduce on watermelon but to also burrow through to get to their meal.

    And once ticks did that then come the pesticides.

    Do you have any real-world examples?

     
  • At 5:51 PM, Blogger Sheikh said…


    So what pattern does it produce?

    Changes in allele frequencies.


    Maybe, maybe not. For example say that chickens were in that watermelon patch- or finches- both eat ticks.


    Of course, it would depend on the environment. Probably given any environment I could suggest which would favor the watermelon-eating ticks, you could make some change which would erase that advantage.


    No because the outcome- NS- is STILL dependent on random inputs- also the ticks need a mutation that would allow them to not only live & reproduce on watermelon but to also burrow through to get to their meal.

    And once ticks did that then come the pesticides.

    Do you have any real-world examples?

    Lenski's citrate-eating E. coli is one example. Once it arose, the population of E. coli able to live on citrate increased and eventually became the dominant strain.

    Let me ask a question about this statement you once made:

    For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices.

    How do you actually know that? I assume you did some sort of experiment, but how do you know there wasn't some other unrelated reason the ticks chose to locate themselves near the watermelon? Maybe there was something else in the room attracting them, or even repelling them from the orange?

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Shiekh:
    Changes in allele frequencies.

    That can happen without NS.

    Shiekh:
    Lenski's citrate-eating E. coli is one example. Once it arose, the population of E. coli able to live on citrate increased and eventually became the dominant strain.

    Artificial selection.

    Please read the following:

    The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild

    NS is a statistical artifact- an after the fact assessment. And it doesn't even seem to be anything that can drive evolution.

    For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices.

    How do you actually know that?

    I basically live in the woods- well my house is located basically surrounded by trees- thousands of trees, bushes, vernal pools, a river down the road and a lake close by.

    One day after a cookout I threw the watermelon rinds into the woods. A few days later I was walking the dog and took a look. When I flipped over several rinds they looked moldy- but the molds appeared to move. So I went and got a magnifying glass and took a closer look. The rinds were full of ticks!

    Never heard of ticks and watermelon so I had to follow up on this. So I tried other fruit- oranges- in pretty much the same location (a few yards away) and nothing in three days. I removed the oranges and peels and put more watermelon rinds down in that location and a few days later more ticks.

    So I dumped a bunch of Ortho Sevin on them- I can't stand ticks.

    Now that is what I do to try to rid areas of ticks.

    I haven't tried other fruits nor veggies as watermelon seems to do OK for my purposes- getting the ticks in one place and then selecting them for death.

    I don't know what that does for my karma though.

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also see "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr- page 281:

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except the nature of changes at any given gene locus is srongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home