Natural selection is evolution?

[rittjc]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

 

[kellyb]

Do you 'believe in' natural selection when it comes to simple organisms like bacteria, or do you just think it doesn't work for animals?

 

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it would help to know that natural selection is not always destructive of information. Sometimes it creates opportunities for new units of information to emerge, such as when a gene is double-copied.
Or, in the act of co-option: one feature that stayed around, because it managed to serve one purpose, ends up accidentally* serving another purpose, which drives selection to "re-mold" to feature.
Or take, for instance, the case of jumping genes, which have been observed to make copies of themselves faster than the host cell makes copies of itself.

If you give me some time, I will try to find that diagram, I once saw, that demonstrated all the various ways genes have been observed "creating" new information, rather than destroying it.

(*ETA: perhaps "accidentally" was not the best choice of words, here. But, I'll keep it, because I'm too lazy to change it to "being pressured into", and then having to explain that the pressure came from the heritage of its past evolution in the face of its current enviornment, and stuff like that.)

 

[cyborg]

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species?

Only the winners matter.

That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.

Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.

As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?

I can't even parse that.

You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip.

Nor that.

As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.

Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new.

Eh?

If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent.

Er, no.

You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

It isn't.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith.

Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.

Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

It sure is the way you use the words.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence?

You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.

After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises.

Sure it can - but that's another game with different rules.

You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

Are you ready for reality now? May we begin by assuming you don't know ****?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

You certainly could.

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

Wrong.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

Wrong.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

Wrong.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Wrong.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

Wrong.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

Wrong. And how could you have been an evolutionist and know virtually no actual facts about it?

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

Wrong. Except for the double negative "not foundation-less".

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

Wrong.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

Reasonably intelligent people actually investigate and study things before they make claims about their function. So, have you any comments about the experimental verifications of Special Relativity I linked to?

 

[Wowbagger]

Oh yes, cyborg does make some good points: It is fallacious to assume "More" information is better; and that science does not "follow the piper", it follows the evidence; and science is not about "strength in numbers", it is about... evidence; and that you have a lot of reading to do, if you are going to learn what evidence we have acquired.

You might want to consider begining your journey, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps it would help to know that natural selection is not always destructive of information.

You'd be only the latest to explain it to him. He doesn't want to acknowledge it though. He wants his "natural selection is entirely destructive" claim to be true to the point of willful ignorance.

 

[cyborg]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?

Thanks.

(Because, you know, being precise about these things is inconvenient I know but might be a good goddamn start).

 

[Wowbagger]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?

The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Of course, the OP has yet to understand that there are opportunities for "new information" to emerge, and not just with single-point mutations; but all those examples I gave above, and others.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

 

[cyborg]

The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Yeah, like I said, only the winners matter.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

Yeah, nor do I.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!

 

[cyborg]

And here's T'ai to chime in with some useless statements!

Hurrah! Now it's a proper thread on evolution!

 

[epepke]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Do you realize that this kind of stuff just shows you how boneheaded you are?

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

Does your brain explode because you need another process to drive a car instead of making love?

Wait a minute. Did I just write "brain"?

 

[Wowbagger]

Yeah, like I said, only the winners matter.

True.
But, from the OP's point of view, all the life forms looking more alike would be the opposite of them speciating and becoming different.

We both know that different enviornments and survival strategies, among the population, would drive them into speciation, but sometimes it is "educational" to look at the world through the eyes of one who doth not even realize that much!

 

[Wowbagger]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!

Evolution is a bit more than jsut natural selection, but there is no random chance in it. The word "random" is often used to describe the fact that mutions occur "random" to whether or not they will benefit the life form, become detrimental to the life form, or neither.
I usually use the word "indifferent" to describe evolution, instead of "random", but that leads to its own set of semantical problems.

 

[Wowbagger]

If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent.

Incidentally, this can be demonstrated false, quite easily. If one of the genes that expressed your eye color mutated, so you have differently colored eyes, would that "replace a critical gene in the parent"?

That is a very simple example, to start with, at least. Can anyone contribute one more fascinating?

 

[espritch]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Sure. You could claim that there was an intelligent designer who, for instance, designed the incredibly complex human immune system and then designed malaria with a complex suit of traits and behaviors specifically suited to allow it to bypass the human immune system. That would be way more contradictory.

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

Luckily, the gene pool is constantly replenished by mutations. Evolution is not natural selection. It is natural selection in combination with mutation. Mutation provides the ever filling pool of variation that natural selection acts on.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

Inbreeding doesn't destroy DNA. It just increases the chances that harmful recessive traits already existing in the gene pool will be matched and thus expressed.

Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it. Perhaps you would like to be the first?

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

Animal breeders tend to inbreed animals because they are trying to achieve particular results quickly and stringently select for the particular characteristics they are trying to preserve. Nature can afford to work changes at more gradual pace (it's had billions of years to work with as opposed to the 10 thousand or so human breeder have had), and thanks to mutation, it has a constant supply of new genetic material to work with.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. A thing that has been observed is in no sense "mythical". Also, before declaring that a mutation is a loss of information, you need to define what you mean by information. A point mutation in an opsin gene can cause that opsin to be sensitive to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In what way is this a loss of information?

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

As already noted, this is a Creationist straw man. Please define information and explain how the frame shift mutation that created the nylon bug was a loss of information.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

This is a rather insulting claim about a lot of intelligent, highly trained, professional scientists. It's also a load of horse manure.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

No. Scientists accept evolution because it fits all available evidence better than any alternative. You calling evolution self-contradictory and illogical does not make it so.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

Relativity cannot be used to explain abiogenises either. Does that make Relativity false? Evolution answers the questions it was intended to answer. That is sufficient.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

They know it happens because it has been observed (unlike special creation).

 

[rittjc]

Do you 'believe in' natural selection when it comes to simple organisms like bacteria, or do you just think it doesn't work for animals?

Well a process is what it is. But I don't know what that has to do with anything. No bacteria has ever been show to exhibit information that was not already in standby in the parent's DNA.

As some point information has to be created. The mechanisms to do this are missing.

When dogs are bred, you find characteristics in the parents in which there is a finite but variable option that the critical information is already there. Let's say for a simple argument that a large dog with a good demeanor has a 1 in four chance of being a small dog according to the more advanced information not yet bred out of his DNA. You keep breeding that dog and you will eventually get a smaller one. Take smaller ones from other parents with the same probability, and do the same. You have bred dogs that can only be small. But you isolated preexisting information to get congruence. You didn't create a "short gene". It was already their in certain probabilities. You simple kept on until you got the combination you want. Then you can begin to do this by mixing the dog with a parent that has a "digging" characteristic. Eventually you have a specific breed but that new breed has none of the possibilities its ancestors did to produce a larger variation of possibilities. When the info is gone, it is imply gone.

So, while the appearance of what is called a "new species" is present, it is actually a far less capable species to go further.

So a destructive process is a terrible concept to use to sell a creative process. Evolution by Natural Selection is a tremendous mountain to climb when you have no legs or arms.

 

[rittjc]

Incidentally, this can be demonstrated false, quite easily. If one of the genes that expressed your eye color mutated, so you have differently colored eyes, would that "replace a critical gene in the parent"?

That is a very simple example, to start with, at least. Can anyone contribute one more fascinating?

Well their are a lot of contradictions to that. By replacing a gene, you are talking about an incredibly complex change in sequences of codons to produce the right amino acids, to produce the right proteins that produce the right cells that produce the right genes. That infers introducing a "complex" change of high order and lots of intelligence. You can't just tweak bits and expect a radical different sequence of complex components of the gene mentioned above. That too would have nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection destroys possibilities.

Explaining this highly complex introduction of new precise DNA is almost as daunting as producing the complexity in the first place.

Also, you ignored the fact that you "replaced" the gene. You didn't add it. So you are suggesting that all the possible "new species" preexist and Natural Selection offers no explanation for that nor the exponentially diminishing variations and instances.

 

[rittjc]

Do you realize that this kind of stuff just shows you how boneheaded you are?



Does your brain explode because you need another process to drive a car instead of making love?

Wait a minute. Did I just write "brain"?

I have no time for infantile responses. You lack the ability to conduct intelligent discourse. I have no interest in your kind. Its time to grow up.