Natural selection

[Third Eye Open]

A particular piece I agree with you. However, if Darwinism is true the ability to write any music at all needs to be explicable via natural selection processes aiding in survival and reproduction
You can try if you feel up to it.

Wrong. The ability to write music and do other creative things is a consequence of intelligence that evolved for other reasons already stated by others here.

The ability to write music may not have any detectable benefit as far as selection goes, but it does not have any reason to be selected against either, so it persists.

Once intelligence evolves all these other things (sports art and whatnot) are side effects that evolve through culture in their own way that is separate from biological evolution.

 

[plumjam]

It is simple observation and nothing more. You are repeating the same tired arguments that have been answered repeatedly. They are based on the same tired mistakes -- things like "selfish gene" = "selfish individual" and "no speciation events have ever been observed" and "how can you explain behavior x based on Darwinian selection?" (which assumes the straw argument -- pointed out to you specifically before -- that all behaviors have a direct "Darwinian explanation", which has been debunked repeatedly). You've even been told the explanations for homosexuality before. I know, I saw it happen. I participated in a previous thread in which you asked the same question and got some of the same answers, but you haven't learned a thing.

Why don't the arguments go away? Why don't the "explanations" satisfy questioners intellectually?
When they don't go away it's because there's a real problem. You criticise me for wanting things to be explained via a theory which purports to be the source of all biological change since the first appearance of life.
Huh?
Meanwhile ideological evolutionists (while their theory can't even explain some pretty elementary aspects of life which, remember, it's supposed to be able to do) gloss over this and attempt to extend the application of their problematical theory to things like multiple universes, the whole world of ideas / philosophy / religion / education / fashion etc.. (memes), morality and more.

That is nothing like science. It's ideology, and a kind of imperialism of inquiry (applying one theory within your own particular academic discipline to the whole of reality)
It's just a little bit mad.

You are behaving like a gnat.

Well, I get a buzz out of it.

No, I think that would be the one that has produced documented speciation events seen in fruit flys. I'm not aware of any such experiment involving gnats. Could you please give me the actual evidence so that I could look at the variability that arises? I would love to see the actual data. And wonder, if such a finding is what occurred, why no one put different groups into new environments. That would simply be quite strange.

Sense of humour bypass? I obviously chose gnats due to it being your preferred means of addressing me. I clearly meant fruit flies.
Any fruit flies that stopped being fruit flies?
No.

If you do not know that groups must be isolated for changes to occur between them, then please ask about this. Sex tends to mix genes and spread them across a large gene pool. If all individuals within a group are subject to the same environment and they all have sex with one another, the only possible changes will occur with some form of drift.

Bigger changes occur when groups are isolated -- either through the inability for them to mate successfully or through some form of physical isolation, so that different groups carry different sets of genes with them; and they accumulate changes over time. By keeping them separate, the accumulated changes have nowhere to go but to diverge.

Still fruit flies.
Let's cut the BS. We are asked to believe that we went from a rock to Shakespeare, due solely to time + luck operating within the arena of some, as yet unexplained, extremely finely tuned physical laws.
How many large morphological changes are needed between a rock and a Bard? How did they happen? Why can't they be made to happen any more in the lab?

Ahhh... (sigh) questions questions.

 

[Third Eye Open]

... Why can't they be made to happen any more in the lab?

Ahhh... (sigh) questions questions.

Because it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS.

We started with species A of fruit flies. Over many generations that species became a different one, species B.

Yes it is still a fruit fly, but now it is unable to reproduce with species A, keeping them on completely different evolutionary paths, able to evolve in different directions and eventually in MILLIONS OF YEARS become separate things all together.

 

[plumjam]

Wrong. The ability to write music and do other creative things is a consequence of intelligence that evolved for other reasons already stated by others here.

The ability to write music may not have any detectable benefit as far as selection goes, but it does not have any reason to be selected against either, so it persists.

Once intelligence evolves all these other things (sports art and whatnot) are side effects that evolve through culture in their own way that is separate from biological evolution.

(bolding mine)

Monkeys get along fine without the extra intelligence.
But if intelligence is such an amazing reproductive/survival advantage why (over supposedly billions of years) haven't huge numbers of other species "hit upon it"?

on the bolded sentence - you have to be kidding, no? the amount of extra time and resources that have to go into raising a human being as compared to a monkey, due to a human child being so dependent on its parents for so long, due to the need for the big brain to develop and learn.
Human intelligence is way over what is needed simply to successfully survive and reproduce.
It cannont be explained by Darwinism.

 

[Gate2501]

Why don't the arguments go away? Why don't the "explanations" satisfy questioners intellectually?

They do not go away because people that want to believe in the magic sky fairy find them incompatible.

They do not satisfy the questioners intellectually because the questioners typically (as in your own case), have no idea what they are talking about, have done no research, and lack any sort of conceptual understanding of the topic at hand.

All of the questions you have asked are being answered by the people on this forum, you are just refusing to accept our answers, and the answers of the scientific community at large. This is a personal problem.

 

[Third Eye Open]

...
Human intelligence is way over what is needed simply to successfully survive and reproduce.
It cannont be explained by Darwinism.

So you are telling me that someone with half of the average intelligence would be just as likely to survive as someone with normal intelligence?

 

[plumjam]

Because it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS.

We started with species A of fruit flies. Over many generations that species became a different one, species B.

Yes it is still a fruit fly, but now it is unable to reproduce with species A, keeping them on completely different evolutionary paths, able to evolve in different directions and eventually in MILLIONS OF YEARS become separate things all together.

(bolding mine)
well this is the nub of it. No evidence, just faith in what will supposedly happen according to the theory. The rate of mutations in the fruit flies was increased by IIRC 5000%, so that's already speeding time up by 50 times, and on millions of generations of flies. In human terms that would be what?... hundreds of millions of years. And still nothing that is not a fruit fly.
When mutations are intensively selected, thus pushing the organism towards the 'species barrier' (for pedants, please substitute a word for species, which will convey what you know I mean)... and then the flies in question are left to their own devices within 2 or 3 generations they migrate right back to the centre. Fruit flies that had no eyes, within a couple of generations their offspring have eyes again.
Think about it like this. It's like you blowing through a straw at a golf ball in a salad bowl. You might, with great effort, move the ball away from the centre, and up the side a bit... but when left to its own devices the golf ball returns to the centre of the bowl.

 

[Michelle Lyon]

My theory.

If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?

I think it isn't so much about physical health or environment as it is mental evolution. The lower classes (generally speaking) make a lot of bad decisions, because (remember this is theoretical), due to genetics, disorders and/or drug use, they have not developed abstract logic and/or executive functioning capabilities, because they never developed those brain parts. Those people who have, are the ones who can choose not to have children for a variety of reasons.

 

[plumjam]

So you are telling me that someone with half of the average intelligence would be just as likely to survive as someone with normal intelligence?

In human society? Surivive and reproduce? Absolutely.
How many humans are you aware of that failed to survive/reproduce due to them being of half the average intelligence?
Just watch Jeremy Kyle, Springer or Rikki Lake ... particularly the "Who's The Daddy" paternity test shows

 

[Gate2501]

In human society? Surivive and reproduce? Absolutely.
How many humans are you aware of that failed to survive/reproduce due to them being of half the average intelligence?
Just watch Jeremy Kyle, Springer or Rikki Lake ... particularly the "Who's The Daddy" paternity test shows

Society tends to pick up the slack for idiots surviving, this much is true. However, if you are going to argue that intelligence no longer has any effect on survival at all, you are completely disconnected from rational thought.

Average IQ tends to be somewhere between 90 and 100. I am not saying that half of the average would mean that you have a 45 to 50 IQ, but you would probably be in some way mentally retarded if you were at half the intelligence of an "average" person.

You would absolutely have a lower chance of survival. Period.

 

[Third Eye Open]

In human society? Surivive and reproduce? Absolutely.
How many humans are you aware of that failed to survive/reproduce due to them being of half the average intelligence?
Just watch Jeremy Kyle, Springer or Rikki Lake ... particularly the "Who's The Daddy" paternity test shows

Able to survive and produce, yes. Just as likely? No.

There is a reason the average person is smarter now than the average person 1000 years ago. It is because it is required to be smart by society.

And as people in general become more smart, the requirements go up. It is a positive feedback loop.

 

[Earthborn]

That is why I put "after" in quotes. It is not literally after. But, in a human-made diagram, it might be placed "after", for reference purposes.

In a human made diagram it might be placed, before, during, after, or in between. It would all be equally correct (that is to say: incorrect). Natural selection doesn't wait until the "fitness landscape" and "the candidates" are "built", it is there from the beginning. It is not some outside force that never changes; it is itself in constant flux and even subject to "natural selection" itself.

That is a good point. Though, it doesn't refute my own.

I think it does. You say that natural selection isn't random, only mutation is. But if an organism is selected by randomly mutated other organisms, I can't see how you can maintain such a claim.

Selection is an event that acts on all the random stuff, but it is not considered random, itself.

Selection is a weird thing, because it depends on the environment, and the environment doesn't stay the same and neither do organisms necessarily stay in the same environment.

And, that is part of my point: We can treat them as random, for our purposes, while acknowledging that they are probably not really that random.

They are random enough. Or should I say "chaotic", or "unpredictable" ?

Science has no motive to assume something is truly, naturally random.

That's assuming science has any fixed motives at all.

Assuming something is random, without evidence, is a science-ender.

I'm not assuming that something is random without evidence. I see lots of evidence that nature is so utterly complex that I think it is ridiculous to believe that understanding more of the physics (and thus the actual complexity!) involved will make us much better at predicting what sort of "candidates" are "built". With such a reductionist approach, sooner or later you are going to hit on that dreaded Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Third Eye Open]

.... You say that natural selection isn't random, only mutation is. But if an organism is selected by randomly mutated other organisms, I can't see how you can maintain such a claim.

Principle.

You are right that changes in the environment can be random. But once those criteria for selection are there, the selection it's self is not random.

If you have one frog with eyes, and one frog born without eyes, it is not random which one will survive. The one best suited for it's environment, no matter what that environment it is or how recently it has changed, will be the most likely to survive.

 

[Earthborn]

If you have one frog with eyes, and one frog born without eyes, it is not random which one will survive. The one best suited for it's environment, no matter what that environment it is or how recently it has changed, will be the most likely to survive.

Notice that in one sentence you say that "it is not random which one will survive" while in the other you say "will be the most likely to survive." The first sentence suggests certainty, the other leaves the door open for chance. Coincidence. Randomness.

Obviously not all organisms have the same chance to survive and produce offspring. That is what natural selection means; depending on the circumstances some will have better chances than others. But it does mean that we are talking probabilities. Some degree of randomness in other words.

Also it should be noted that "which one is best suited for it's environment" is often not clear at all. An environment has challenges that can often be solved in many different ways. There is usually more than one viable survival strategy. If it is cold you can dig yourself in and sleep, or migrate to a warmer place. If there is little food you can conserve energy, or search harder. It may be that your frogs live in an environment where neither has a distinct advantage over the other, but that will depend in part on the way their difficult to predict behaviour will cause them to make use of what they've got.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How many species that shag are there? They all manage fine without needing genius intelligence to help them out.

Who said intelligence and social structures were the ONLY strategy for reproductive success? It worked fantastically well in humans, but other strategies also work.

There are a great many species that rely on fangs and claws which humans lack for their success. Does that mean that all successful organisms should have fangs and claws?

ETA: I just caught up on the thread and realized that Ichneumonwasp already made this point about a page ago with the example of a cheetah's running speed.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Notice that in one sentence you say that "it is not random which one will survive" while in the other you say "will be the most likely to survive." The first sentence suggests certainty, the other leaves the door open for chance. Coincidence. Randomness.

Obviously not all organisms have the same chance to survive and produce offspring. That is what natural selection means; depending on the circumstances some will have better chances than others. But it does mean that we are talking probabilities. Some degree of randomness in other words....
got.

I agree. I guess we just have different definitions of the word random. I had thought that random generally meant 'unpredictable.'

I suppose we shouldn't be talking about individuals here. The outcome of one frog is pretty hard to predict, but a group of eyeless frogs versus a group of eyed frogs in an environment favoring eyes, the frogs with eyes will tend to do better, thus propagating eyes. If eyes are not needed, the frogs will do fine with out them, and the eyed frogs will be worse off for wasting energy on a useless organ.

I don't see what is random about the selection here, only the basis of the selection is random.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Whence homosexuals?

I vaguely remember answering a question just like this from you, but perhaps I confused you for someone else.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, humans are social animals, and we make great contributions to the survival of our social circles, most especially our very close relatives. In many tribal societies, for example, the predominate male figures in a child's life are the male relatives of the child's mother - either because paternity is uncertain, or because of tradition. Even in cultures without that tradition, humans tend to make contributions to the survival of other humans beyond their own children. At a certain concentration, having members who do not spend energy raising their own children, but expend that saved energy helping their social group has a net positive effect for everyone.

It's called biological altruism. Animals from ants to lionesses to humans all engage in it because it is one of the useful tricks natural selection has come upon. In fact, homosexuality poses a more troubling problem for a theistic view of the origin of life than it does for natural selection.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why don't the arguments go away? Why don't the "explanations" satisfy questioners intellectually?

Simple. Because you don't question your own underlying assumptions. We tell you this stuff, and it obviously never sinks in. You tell me. Why are you so oblivious to such information? Glib answers like, "It's wrong" won't cut it without clear demonstration which you have obviously not shown. Why do you persist in the same questions that have repeatedly been answered?

When they don't go away it's because there's a real problem. You criticise me for wanting things to be explained via a theory which purports to be the source of all biological change since the first appearance of life.
Huh?

There is no 'real problem' -- there is a fundamental difference in beginning assumptions. You seem to have a straw mansion built of unwarranted assumptions about this information and you seem to refuse to want to learn any of the details that would sweep away the cobwebs. Tell me why? You are the one repeating the same errors.

Meanwhile ideological evolutionists (while their theory can't even explain some pretty elementary aspects of life which, remember, it's supposed to be able to do) gloss over this and attempt to extend the application of their problematical theory to things like multiple universes, the whole world of ideas / philosophy / religion / education / fashion etc.. (memes), morality and more.

What elementary aspects of life can't it explain?

Well, I get a buzz out of it.

Jokes aside, that is precisely what I feared and why I mentioned gnats. Not gadflies, mind you, but gnats.

Sense of humour bypass?

Not letting you get away with anything non-bypass.

I obviously chose gnats due to it being your preferred means of addressing me. I clearly meant fruit flies.
Any fruit flies that stopped being fruit flies?
No.

Why, yes, they have. The definition of species is based, in part, on their inability to mate, so yes they have stopped being the previous species of fruit fly. Give them time and you will see greater and greater divergence.

Let's cut the BS. We are asked to believe that we went from a rock to Shakespeare, due solely to time + luck operating within the arena of some, as yet unexplained, extremely finely tuned physical laws.
How many large morphological changes are needed between a rock and a Bard? How did they happen? Why can't they be made to happen any more in the lab?

Yes, let's cut the BS. Do you know how much diversity would engulf the world if a new species arose within every ten years in a lab? Do you have any conception of how many morphological changes are required for us to see large differences in divergent species so that they look different to us and we immediately recognize them as separate species? No?

Ahhh... (sigh) questions questions.

The truth is out there, but lies are in your head.*

* Terry Pratchett ----- Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

(bolding mine)

Monkeys get along fine without the extra intelligence.
But if intelligence is such an amazing reproductive/survival advantage why (over supposedly billions of years) haven't huge numbers of other species "hit upon it"?

on the bolded sentence - you have to be kidding, no? the amount of extra time and resources that have to go into raising a human being as compared to a monkey, due to a human child being so dependent on its parents for so long, due to the need for the big brain to develop and learn.
Human intelligence is way over what is needed simply to successfully survive and reproduce.
It cannont be explained by Darwinism.

Can I ask you a question? Do you think that we are saying that there was some big drive for intelligence that produced humans? Many of your questions seem to use this as a starting point.

If so, you've got it wrong.

No one argues that organisms need the extra intelligence to survive, but that the intelligence we do have allowed us to survive as the creatures that we are. What difference does it make if our intelligence is "above" what is needed for some other creature to survive in its niche? I don't see what possible relevance that has to any discussion.

 

[Terry]

Good answer.

How about human beings who either
1. choose a celibate life, or
2. have sex but always use contraception/abortion in order to never have children
3. are born homosexual

If the selfish gene theory is true, and determinism is true, I fail to see how such phenomena can possibly arise.

They can be the unavoidable side-effects of something that is overall highly adaptive. In the case of homosexuality, I suggest that it could be pair-bonding that is the adaptive trait.