Difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
backspace
Steven J.
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
"Random," as used by evolutionists, means, "random with respect to the
needs of the organism." When it is said that mutations are random,
what that means is that, e.g. a fox born into a cold, snowy
environment is no more or less likely to have mutations for stocky
build, short ears, thick fur, or light fur, than a fox born into a
temperate forest environment or one born into a desert environment.
But whether a particular mutation spreads through a population is not
random with respect to the needs of the organism; a fox with a
mutation for thick fur is more likely to survive and leave many
offspring if it lives in the Arctic than if it lives in a Mexican
desert, whereas the reverse is true for a fox with a mutation for a
long-limbed, slender build. "Random natural selection" seems, at
first and, for that matter, at second glance like a contradiction in
terms.
Now, one can speak meaningfully of non-random mutation: natural
selection would have an easier time of it if, e.g. having some poison
in the environment made mutations for resistance to that poison more
common than they would be in an equally stressful environment that did
not contain that poison. By the same token, natrural selection would
work less well if a mutation that was useful in hot environments were
more likely to show up in cold environments, and vice-versa.
At third glance, perhaps some sense can be made of your question,
though. Natural selection, as scientists understand it, works to
adapt organisms to their present, particular environment. Natural
selection can't favor a trait that makes it harder to find food, or
avoid becoming food, or find a mate, here and now, even if, a few
centuries down the road, your descendants living in a different
environment would find that trait useful. Natural selection
(differential reproductive success of variant offspring) could
therefore be said to be "random" with respect to any particular long-
term destination (e.g. at the start of the Triassic, natural selection
on basal archosaurs was not aiming at birds, and in a different
Triassic traits different traits, perhaps incompatible with evolution
into birds, would have survived) one might imagine for a population.
Natural selection *now* isn't, e.g. favoring traits in racoons on the
grounds that, fifty million years from now, those traits will be
useful when their descendants evolve abstract intelligence and
language.
If "natural selection" were less of a metaphor -- if it really
involved some "thing" that actually examined and selected -- this
might not be so. One might conceive of a neo-Lamarckian sort of
selection that always kept in mind where a lineage was supposed to be
heading over the long term. But currently, no mechanism is known or
even imagined that could accomplish this.
-- Steven J.
rido
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
Random is acak and non randum is prosedural
http://www.kotaprobolinggo.com
http://www.barclayse.com
http://asktheflower.blogspot.com
http://cakrido.blogspot.com
backspace
Steven J. wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
> >
> Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
Yes, pragmatics. MIT has a whole course on this "pragmatics" issue.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
Look at the cartoon with the caption:"Sherlock saw the man using
binoculars" which they term "structural ambiguity".
The same issue with the other threads on this issue by Perry Marshall
"You have a green light" which could mean you are holding a green
light bulb, you have a green light for the project to go ahead or you
can drive your car. Three totally different meanings depending on the
pragmatics or intent.
JQ
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
Random selection? What are you talking about? Do you mean random
mutation?
backspace
Well that you should ask Jerry Coyne
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807
Coyne: "..Evolution is manifestly not a chance process because of the
order produced by natural selection--order that can, over vast periods
of time, result in complex organisms looking as if they were designed
to fit their environment. Humans, the product of *NON-RANDOM Natural
Selection*, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways
they are even more complex. The explanation of seeming design by
solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement, and
a major source of discomfort for those holding the view that nature
was designed by God...."
And JQ I presume you know that Random Mutation was only coined in 1910
and that the intent with "mutation" here
is genetic mutation. Darwin's intent with 'transmutation' was the
transformation of one species into another. Darwin didn't know about
genes. Yet most people use RM with the intent of conveying that Darwin
somehow established something got "randomed". Dr. Shapiro says there
is nothing random going on in the genenome.
Darwin never used "random" nor had such pragmatics with his usage of
"chance" which said was an "...incorrect expression" after using it
throughout his book. Such absurdity won't be tolerated in a peer
reviewed journal.
Klaus Hellnick
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
Natural selection is none random. If you knew what the word "selection"
meant, you would not be confused.
Klaus
Inez
> Steven J. wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
>
>
> Look at the cartoon with the caption:"Sherlock saw the man using
> binoculars" which they term "structural ambiguity".
>
> The same issue with the other threads on this issue by Perry Marshall
> "You have a green light" which could mean you are holding a green
> light bulb, you have a green light for the project to go ahead or you
> can drive your car. Three totally different meanings depending on the
> pragmatics or intent.
But as discussed before, meaning isn't conveyed by intent, it's
conveyed by words. Intent may or may not be evident. In fact, intent
may purposefully be hidden. For example, your intent is to argue
against evolution, but you never state that.
If you want to find a quote about evolution that confuses you, trot
out the whole thing in context and someone will be kind enough to
explain it to you.
wf...@comcast.net
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Darwin never used "random" nor had such pragmatics with his usage of
>"chance" which said was an "...incorrect expression" after using it
>throughout his book. Such absurdity won't be tolerated in a peer
>reviewed journal.
newton didn't write in a peer reviewed journal either and he laid the
basics of modern physics.
backspace has confused himself. he thinks scientists are like gospel
writers. when it's written, it's once and done; things never change
nothing could be further from the truth. the subject of science is
nature. its goal is to determine how nature works. and science has
made a fundamental discovery:
all natural processes have natural causes. that concept has NEVER been
violated.
creationists, like backspace, INSIST that the worthless idea of
teleological religion replace science. even though it has, for 5000
years NEVER explained a single feature of nature, they insist
religion, not science, explains nature.
backspace is unable to understand that science, because it's not a
theological monogue, but is a dialog between the scientist and other
scientists, concepts become defined by testing, not by authority.
and therein lies his confusion...and his undoing.
Inez
> On Aug 4, 12:18 pm, JQ <jac...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 4:49 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > Random selection? What are you talking about? Do you mean random
> > mutation?
>
> Coyne: "..Evolution is manifestly not a chance process because of the
> order produced by natural selection--order that can, over vast periods
> of time, result in complex organisms looking as if they were designed
> to fit their environment. Humans, the product of *NON-RANDOM Natural
> Selection*, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways
> they are even more complex. The explanation of seeming design by
> solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement, and
> a major source of discomfort for those holding the view that nature
> was designed by God...."
The term "radnom natural selection" does not appear in your quote, so
it's not immediately obvious why he should ask Jerry Coyne his
question.
> And JQ I presume you know that Random Mutation was only coined in 1910
> and that the intent with "mutation" here
> is genetic mutation. Darwin's intent with 'transmutation' was the
> transformation of one species into another. Darwin didn't know about
> genes. Yet most people use RM with the intent of conveying that Darwin
> somehow established something got "randomed". Dr. Shapiro says there
> is nothing random going on in the genenome.
Here's a thing you should know about language- you can't just bang an
"ed" on the end of a noun and expect a sensible word to be created.
You wind up looking foolish.
> Darwin never used "random"
So what? The science of evolution continues to advance. This has
been explained to you before.
> nor had such pragmatics with his usage of
> "chance" which said was an "...incorrect expression" after using it
> throughout his book. Such absurdity won't be tolerated in a peer
> reviewed journal.
Why don't you give an example of someone giving "pragmatics" of a word
they're using. I'm curious to see what it would look like.
For that matter I'm curious why you pretend not to know what Darwin
meant by "chance" when everyone else who reads the book seems to
understand what he meant. Are you really that much dumber than
everyone else?
Klaus Hellnick
Coyne clearly was stressing that selection is not random. Why are you
confused?
Klaus
hersheyh
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
'Random natural selection' is an oxymoron. *Mutation* or *variant
production* *is* random wrt need, but *when* there is selection
(natural or artificial), it is *always* non-random, by definition (you
do understand the pragmatics of the word 'selection' when used in a
passive sense, don't you?).
The term that describes *random* evolution or change over time is
"neutral drift". It occurs *when* there is no selective bias. Most
evolution at the sequence level is effectively selectively neutral.
Change or evolution of sequence is a given, so long as there is
sufficient time and no selection. Change cannot be prevented *except*
by the *conservative* action of selection. And, of course, most
selection is conservative in nature, preserving useful function. That
doesn't prevent selection from causing change. It just means that
change due to selection is rarer than conservation due to selection.
Absent selection there would only be drift, which, as a random
process, cannot be prevented in the absence of selection.
backspace
> On Aug 4, 3:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> 'Random natural selection' is an oxymoron. *Mutation* or *variant
> production* *is* random wrt need, but *when* there is selection
> (natural or artificial), it is *always* non-random, by definition (you
> do understand the pragmatics of the word 'selection' when used in a
> passive sense, don't you?).
Depends what your intent is with "Selection". Mine is alway conscious
selection towards a goal. I have no idea what is yours. "Selection"
like all words is just that - a word. Something we convey intent
with. The MIT course on pragmatics
gave the following assignment:
· Collect four random naturally occurring utterances during your day
tomorrow
(for example, whatever you last said or wrote at 11:30am, 1:30pm,
3:30pm, and
5:30pm).
· For each of the utterances,
1.describe the context in which it occurred;
2. describe the purpose it was meant to serve;
3. describe what background knowledge your addressee needed to underÂ
stand your utterance.
I especially like the third point about background information.
Hersheyh you don't want to tell me what is your intent with
*selection*. Are you talking about the "selection force"? If not then
why are you using the word "selection" then.
stew dean
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
In theory natural selection is not random. There are unpredicatable
things in natuure but these are not random.
To understand why evolution is not random you first have to understand
what random means.
Stew Dean
backspace
>
> > Darwin never used "random"
> So what? The science of evolution continues to advance. This has
> been explained to you before.
Well you should ask that from Coyne. "...The explanation of seeming
design by
solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement...."
Every person like Coyne invents his own phrases with its particular
intent and then says it was somehow Darwin's genius insight. No it
wasn't. Non-random NS is Coyne's concept - not Darwin. It is
intellectual fraud to attribute everything said in Evolutionary
circles to Darwin. A person who had no maths training and no concept
of falsification.
backspace
> On Aug 4, 8:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> In theory natural selection is not random.
> There are unpredictable things in nature but these are not random.
I would have no idea. There are potentially unpredictable things on
the planet Zog 10zillion light years from eart - what are you trying
to say?
> To understand why evolution is not random you first have to understand
> what random means.
Depends what you mean by evolution. Wells said on CNN that "... for
some evolution means change over time..."
Is your intent that evolution means change over time? What would the
Theory of Evolution then be. Perhaps the theory of evolution would
then be that there is change over time. Who knows "evolution" is
undefined it could mean anything. Is somebody like Wells with an IQ
that can't be measured can talk such nonsense then what hope is there
for the rest of the brainwashed populace.
Inez
> On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Darwin never used "random"
> > So what? The science of evolution continues to advance. This has
> > been explained to you before.
>
> Well you should ask that from Coyne. "...The explanation of seeming
> design by solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement...."
And the fact that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb is not lessened
by the fact that modern lightbulbs have advanced since the ones he
made.
> Every person like Coyne invents his own phrases with its particular
> intent and then says it was somehow Darwin's genius insight. No it
> wasn't. Non-random NS is Coyne's concept - not Darwin.
I don't know why you think that adding the qualifier "non-random" to
an term describing a process no one thought was random changes the
meaning. I guess you just are thickheaded that way.
> It is intellectual fraud to attribute everything said in Evolutionary
> circles to Darwin. A person who had no maths training and no concept
> of falsification.
I shouldn't want to question your expertise on Intellectual fraud.
TomS
<1186246388....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, stew dean stated..."
The actions of inscrutable, omnipotent designers are certainly
unpredictable.
"Random" is far too restrained a term to describe them. The spin
of a roulette wheel is far more orderly - after all, it can only
result in precisely one of 38 outcomes, each of them more or
less equally likely. That's random. If inscrutable, omnipotent
designers were in charge of a roulette wheel, anything could
happen.
--
---Tom S.
"... to call in a special or miraculous act of creation reduces every
conceivable world to accident."
Jacob Bronowski, in "American Scholar" v.43 (1974) page 400
Timberwoof
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 3:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
> >
> > 'Random natural selection' is an oxymoron. *Mutation* or *variant
> > production* *is* random wrt need, but *when* there is selection
> > (natural or artificial), it is *always* non-random, by definition (you
> > do understand the pragmatics of the word 'selection' when used in a
> > passive sense, don't you?).
>
> Depends what your intent is with "Selection". Mine is alway conscious
> selection towards a goal. I have no idea what is yours. "Selection"
> like all words is just that - a word. Something we convey intent
> with. The MIT course on pragmatics
> gave the following assignment:
> ? Collect four random naturally occurring utterances during your day
> tomorrow
> (for example, whatever you last said or wrote at 11:30am, 1:30pm,
> 3:30pm, and
> 5:30pm).
> ? For each of the utterances,
> 1.describe the context in which it occurred;
> 2. describe the purpose it was meant to serve;
> 3. describe what background knowledge your addressee needed to under?
> stand your utterance.
>
> I especially like the third point about background information.
> Hersheyh you don't want to tell me what is your intent with
> *selection*. Are you talking about the "selection force"? If not then
> why are you using the word "selection" then.
Who are you to tell people who know more about it than yo do what words
to use? Arguing diction isn't going to change the fundamental facts that
are being described.
In answer to your specific question, why do people say "selection" when
they mean "selection force", I's say it's because the word "force" is
redundant. Clearly something is selecting which members of a species
reproduce and which don't. That something is the environment, or Nature,
if you will. Thus the phrase "Natural Selection" is perfectly
appropriate.
You should also consider that the phrase "Natural Selection" is not a
complete description of what's going on. It is a handy label to denote
the entire process and all its subtleties. I don't understand why you
keep getting caught up in the meanings of the label-words themselves and
refuse to proceed to any deeper understanding.
Your objection makes about as much sense as refusing to use the word
"Camera" because it means "Room": "That's ridiculous! This isn't a room!
There's no furniture in there. Why, it's hardly big enough to put a doll
in! Your pragmatics of the use of the word "Room" to denote a device
that makes photographs is in error! Thus I refuse to believe any part of
the photographic process!"
In fact, "Camera" is short for "Camera Obscura", a "Darkened Room" with
pinhole in one wall and a piece of paper hung up on the inside of the
opposite wall. An artist would draw the scene projected onto the paper
with perfect proportions and perspective. That usage was then extended
to similar but portable contraptions in which a glass plate coated in
photosensitive materials was placed opposite the lens. Nevertheless,
it's a mystery why modern devices for digital photography are called
"Cameras". Because it is so confusing, I propose a campaign to eradicate
the word "Camera" from the photographer's lexicon.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." æ°—hris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
backspace
Inez wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:22 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know why you think that adding the qualifier "non-random" to
> an term describing a process no one thought was random changes the
> meaning. I guess you just are thickheaded that way.
Well what then is the intent with RM+NS - Random mutation and Natural
Selection? If your pragmatics with NS is non-random NS (whatever NS
is) then how must I understand RM+NS. What is would be your intent
with RM+NS, especially "random" since the concept according to Prof.
Herrmann from US Naval academy doesn't even exist.
T Pagano
<stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
>On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>>
>Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
It seems perfectly reasonable to ask about the random and non random
aspects of Natural Selection. And with respect to what aspects is
Natural Selection "random" or "non random." Atheists portray Natural
Selection in anthropomorphic and teleological terms, offer simplistic
examples, ignore significant environmental variables and the random
events that occur. For example, the fastest gazelle can still trip
and break its leg and be caught by its predator lion.
>"Random," as used by evolutionists, means, "random with respect to the
>needs of the organism."
Nucleotide point mutations are random variables in the sense that they
occur with a fixed frequency and according to a know probability
distribution. As such these mutations are random with respect to
EVERY attribute of the individual not just the single attribute of
NEED. The proposition "random with respect to the needs of the
individual" was offered by Darwin specifically to restrict
consideration of genuinely non random and teleological possibilitiies.
> When it is said that mutations are random,
>what that means is that, e.g. a fox born into a cold, snowy
>environment is no more or less likely to have mutations for stocky
>build, short ears, thick fur, or light fur, than a fox born into a
>temperate forest environment or one born into a desert environment.
>But whether a particular mutation spreads through a population is not
>random with respect to the needs of the organism; a fox with a
>mutation for thick fur is more likely to survive and leave many
>offspring if it lives in the Arctic than if it lives in a Mexican
>desert, whereas the reverse is true for a fox with a mutation for a
>long-limbed, slender build. "Random natural selection" seems, at
>first and, for that matter, at second glance like a contradiction in
>terms.
Natural Selection can explain the change in frequency of EXISTING
characteristics within a population (as with the changing frequency of
finch beak sizes and industrial moth coloring) within limits defined
by the existing genome of the population through differential
reproduction and survival. How Natural Selection guided some
purported series of random mutations to achieve these novel
populations in the first place is never explained.
This also applies to examples of anti-bacterial resistance. Resistence
is developed as the result of a loss of sensitivity to the
anti-bacterial agent. That is, something was broken and usually this
"breaking" causes other problems for the organism making it less fit
outside the catastrophic enviroment. When the anti-bacterial
environment disappears the resistent mutatant variation almost
disappear. These are not examples of the Natural Selection adding
coherence, and progressive develpment to the otherwise random source
of change. And coherence and progressive development are what is
required to explain non random emergence and develpment to some novel
biological feature.
Finally Steven J ignores a host of problems associated with spreading
a large series of putative point mutations throughout the population
not the least of which is Haldane's Dilemma.
>
>Now, one can speak meaningfully of non-random mutation:
Steven J can't do anthing such thing. At least not from his
misleading example.
> natural
>selection would have an easier time of it if, e.g. having some poison
>in the environment made mutations for resistance to that poison more
>common than they would be in an equally stressful environment that did
>not contain that poison.
This assumes that there is suffient time given the mutation rate and
the reproductive rate to produce the number of changes to resist some
poison environment.
Behe's latest book using the malarial parasite's resistance to
malarial treatments (two mutations occurred together) illustrates
these problems and he concludes that the edge beyond which
neoDarwinism lacks the resources to tread is there---just beyond two
mutations. Behe shows that in its arms race with its human opponent
the malarial parasite has not been able to overcome human sickle cell
and beta thalasemia resistance to their attacks which would require
many more than two mutations to overcome even given its tremendous
reproductive rate and numbers.
Behe also reports that after a particular malarial treatment is
discontinued in an area (due to anti-biotic resistance) that the
malarial parasite population reverts back to the "normal" strain.
Again while this is evidence of natural selection in action it is not
a demonstration of the coherence and progressivity necessary to
explain the emergence and deveopment of novel structures, systems and
organisms.
> By the same token, natrural selection would
>work less well if a mutation that was useful in hot environments were
>more likely to show up in cold environments, and vice-versa.
A mutation may not simply be an improvement with respect to one
environmental factor. There may be an offseting difficulty with
respect to other environmental conditions. Next Natural Selection may
"choose" a point mutation in the next generation which blocks or
negates the positive addition in the first. There is no evidence that
Natural Selection----that is, differential survival conjoined to
differential reproduction----can coherently and progressively lead to
novel complex structures, structures, systems and organisms.
All of the putative examples of Natural Selection in action, like
anti-bacterial resistance, involve at most two relevant mutations and
even these lead nowhere.
>
>At third glance, perhaps some sense can be made of your question,
>though. Natural selection, as scientists understand it, works to
>adapt organisms to their present, particular environment. Natural
>selection can't favor a trait that makes it harder to find food, or
>avoid becoming food, or find a mate, here and now, even if, a few
>centuries down the road, your descendants living in a different
>environment would find that trait useful.
First, Steven J treats "Natural Selection" as if it were some
teleological agent which "works" on behalf of all organisms towards
some distant fitness "peak." It is nothing like this. It is little
more than a label which captures the effects of "differential
survival" conjoined to "differential reproduction." Steven J offers
an over simplified explanation which fails to take into account the
fact that stochastic events in any local environment often have a
significant effect on survival and reproductive success.
> Natural selection
>(differential reproductive success of variant offspring) could
>therefore be said to be "random" with respect to any particular long-
>term destination (e.g. at the start of the Triassic, natural selection
>on basal archosaurs was not aiming at birds, and in a different
>Triassic traits different traits, perhaps incompatible with evolution
>into birds, would have survived) one might imagine for a population.
Natural Selection yields adaptation to changing local environments and
then only with respect to the expression of EXISTING characteristics
not future ones. As Steven J reports these changes are effectively
random with respect to any putative progressive change. S. J. Gould
doubted that a case could be made for natural selection having any
bias for leading to progressive complexity; he rather saw the
opposite.
How this leads to the conclusion that Natural Selection is non random
with respect to the emergence of novelty is beyond me and would seem
to argue against the neoDarwinian mechanism having the sufficient
causal power to explain biological diversity.
>Natural selection *now* isn't, e.g. favoring traits in racoons on the
>grounds that, fifty million years from now, those traits will be
>useful when their descendants evolve abstract intelligence and
>language.
>
>If "natural selection" were less of a metaphor -- if it really
>involved some "thing" that actually examined and selected -- this
>might not be so. One might conceive of a neo-Lamarckian sort of
>selection that always kept in mind where a lineage was supposed to be
>heading over the long term. But currently, no mechanism is known or
>even imagined that could accomplish this.
But there is an alternative---intelligent design. ID has the causal
power to explain the origin of complex structures, systems and
organisms. Darwin dismissed design by using an argument from
imperfection. Gould used the same argument to dismiss design when
discussing the Panda's thumb. Both were theological arguments not
scientific ones. Behe's and Dembski's argument trump Darwin and Gould
by using accepted to science to introduce ID.
Behe's ID argument is grounded in real world biology and in what is
biologically reasonable as opposed to atheist theoretical
possibilities and if-so stories. Dembski's ID argument is well
grounded in the accepted sciences of Information Theory and
Probability Theory. So far the atheist world has been impotent
against Irreducible Complexity and no one has shown any fatal flaws in
Dembski's theory.
Behe's current argument concerning the limits of the neoDarwinian
mechanism is even more devasting than IC
Regards,
T Pagano
>
>-- Steven J.
>
Timberwoof
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Inez wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 10:22 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't know why you think that adding the qualifier "non-random" to
> > an term describing a process no one thought was random changes the
> > meaning. I guess you just are thickheaded that way.
>
> Well what then is the intent with RM+NS - Random mutation and Natural
> Selection?
Two things, with some background. DNA contains the instructions for
building an organism; it is normally duplicated along with the organism
during reproduction. First, "Random Mutation" means that during the
process of reproducing the DNA for a new organism, errors sometimes
creep into the copy. The location and effect of the mutations is not
predictable. Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
> If your pragmatics with NS is non-random NS (whatever NS
> is) then how must I understand RM+NS. What is would be your intent
> with RM+NS, especially "random" since the concept according to Prof.
> Herrmann from US Naval academy doesn't even exist.
Enough other people think that some concept that could be denoted by the
word "random" does exist.
What's interesting is that the process of "random" mutation and
"natural" selection can quite convincingly be simulated using computers.
The processes and its outcomes are remarkable and a good model of what
really happens even when the "random" numbers generated by the computer
program aren't actually random at all, but only pseudorandom. And
someone who followed the process along every step of the way could
precisely predict the value of every "random" number generated, their
interactions with the simulation program are so complex that it's easier
to just run the program, pretend the numbers are random, and see what
happens. As long as the pseudorandom number generator is good enough, it
doesn't actually matter that it's onlypseudorandom.
You keep getting caught up in your favorite untenable meanings of words.
One could deduce that you do not actually want to understand the
mechanisms of evolution. Is that fair?
mel turner
news:1186213769.6...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
The first is just something you made up.
cheers
backspace
wrote:
> Two things, with some background. DNA contains the instructions for
> building an organism; it is normally duplicated along with the organism
> during reproduction. First, "Random Mutation" means that during the
> process of reproducing the DNA for a new organism, errors sometimes
> creep into the copy. The location and effect of the mutations is not
> predictable.
> Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
> allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
This can't be falsified. No matter what happens you would tell me the
same story.
Ken Shackleton
In principle it can be.
If copying errors did not occur, or if the copying errors that did
occur followed a predictable pattern, then the point about "Random
Mutation" would be falsified.
Secondly, if it was found that the differing, heritable traits did not
*ever* have any effect on reproductive success, then Natural Selection
would be falsified.
There is a difference between an idea being falsifiable in principle
and being, in fact, false. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are
falsifiable, however, they are not false.
Ken Shackleton
Greg G.
> > Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
> > allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
>
> This can't be falsified. No matter what happens you would tell me the
> same story.
In reality, things happen. It is not falsifiable. Some things are more
likely to happen than others. We know this because some things happen
more frequently than others. Science tries to explain why things tend
to happen one way and not another. In biology, some life forms survive
more persistently than others. We know that there is a relationship
between the life form's physical characteristics and its tendency to
survive and reproduce. These traits are related to the DNA of the life
form. Thus, the survivabilty enhanced by certain traits has a feedback
mechanism to the DNA.
Events happen and if those events affect the survivability of life
forms, it is "natural selection". IOW, "natural selection" is a term
applied to certain events that do, in fact, happen. To falsify
"natural selection", you would have to show that events are illusions,
that we are simply dreams of a Dreamer.
This is so obvious that whenever a creationist allows him/herself to
grasp this concept, they convert to the macro/microevolution argument.
--
Greg G.
This universe is just a test. The real one starts soon.
Glenn
> On Aug 4, 4:51 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 4, 9:24 pm, Timberwoof
>
> ...
>
> > > Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
> > > allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
>
> > This can't be falsified. No matter what happens you would tell me the
> > same story.
>
> In reality, things happen. It is not falsifiable. Some things are more
> likely to happen than others. We know this because some things happen
> more frequently than others. Science tries to explain why things tend
> to happen one way and not another. In biology, some life forms survive
> more persistently than others. We know that there is a relationship
> between the life form's physical characteristics and its tendency to
> survive and reproduce. These traits are related to the DNA of the life
> form. Thus, the survivabilty enhanced by certain traits has a feedback
> mechanism to the DNA.
>
> Events happen and if those events affect the survivability of life
> forms, it is "natural selection". IOW, "natural selection" is a term
> applied to certain events
*All* events.
> that do, in fact, happen. To falsify
> "natural selection", you would have to show that events
*All* events.
> are illusions,
> that we are simply dreams of a Dreamer.
>
> This is so obvious that whenever a creationist allows him/herself to
> grasp this concept, they convert to the macro/microevolution argument.
>
Or to the "you're absolutely insane" argument.
rev.goetz
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
Selection is always non-random. A random change of an allele frequency
is called drift, not selection. Do you really care about learning this?
stew dean
> On Aug 4, 6:53 pm, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 4, 8:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > In theory natural selection is not random.
>
> Who's theory is this now?
Theories, like good ideas, have no owners.
>
> > There are unpredictable things in nature but these are not random.
>
> I would have no idea. There are potentially unpredictable things on
> the planet Zog 10zillion light years from eart - what are you trying
> to say?
Exactly what I said. Unpredicatable is not the same as random.
> > To understand why evolution is not random you first have to understand
> > what random means.
>
> Depends what you mean by evolution.
Biological evolution.
> Wells said on CNN that "... for
> some evolution means change over time..."
Some being those who understand evolution. CNN is not a great source
of authority.
> Is your intent that evolution means change over time?
Evolution is more than change - it's change filtered by environment
(plus other stuff). My intent is to say that evolution is not random,
but to understand this you have to understand what 'not random' means.
It means it is the product of cause and effect.
> What would the Theory of Evolution then be. Perhaps the theory of evolution would
> then be that there is change over time. Who knows "evolution" is
> undefined it could mean anything. Is somebody like Wells with an IQ
> that can't be measured can talk such nonsense then what hope is there
> for the rest of the brainwashed populace.
What are you talking about? Evolution is defined. It's an objective
theory and the 'debate' is all about those who have problems accepting
it for what ever reason. I've no idea who 'Wells' is and an out of
context quote from a channel I don't watch from someone I've never
heard of isnt exactly a compelling argument is it?
Stew Dean
Tony Raymonds
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
Easily falsifiable, for example if you could show that mutations have no
effect on the reproductive success of the creatures being studied then
that would falsify evolution.
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
hersheyh
> On Aug 4, 5:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 3:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > 'Random natural selection' is an oxymoron. *Mutation* or *variant
> > production* *is* random wrt need, but *when* there is selection
> > (natural or artificial), it is *always* non-random, by definition (you
> > do understand the pragmatics of the word 'selection' when used in a
> > passive sense, don't you?).
>
> Depends what your intent is with "Selection". Mine is alway conscious
> selection towards a goal.
Mine isn't. You need to use my meaning. I explicitly said that
selection can be (and in this case, is) passive and unconscious and
merely is a way of saying that the dumb unintelligent environment can
and does discriminate between phenotypes. Such discrimination by the
dumb unintelligent environment is often stochastic in nature (a
significant statistical preference for one phenotype rather than
another wrt their ability to reproduce). Moreover, as I also pointed
out, it is possible for there not to be selection (a significant
statistical preference for one phenotype rather than another wrt their
ability to reproduce).
Selection refers to the action, not the actor. My very old dictionary
says that 'selection' is "The *act* [my emphasis] of choosing and
taking from among a number." No requirement that the *act* be
performed by a 'conscious' agent.
Selective is defined as "Of, relating to, or made by choice;
designating selection or choice." But one of the examples given is
"selective absorption" of heat or light by an object. So unless you
consider 'color' of an object to be a 'conscious' actor, there is no
hint of a 'conscious' actor or 'conscious' action required when one
uses the word *selection*. My use of the word 'selection' does not
differ from that used in the phrase "selective absorption".
Now, of course, you will start to whine that you don't understand the
pragmatics of "discrimination" or "reproduction" or some other
*word*. That is all you can do; whine about semantics. That is
because you are an ignorant git with the maturity level of a
particularly obnoxious two-year old.
> I have no idea what is yours. "Selection"
> like all words is just that - a word. Something we convey intent
> with. The MIT course on pragmatics
> gave the following assignment:
> · Collect four random naturally occurring utterances during your day
> tomorrow
> (for example, whatever you last said or wrote at 11:30am, 1:30pm,
> 3:30pm, and
> 5:30pm).
> · For each of the utterances,
> 1.describe the context in which it occurred;
> 2. describe the purpose it was meant to serve;
> 3. describe what background knowledge your addressee needed to underÂ
> stand your utterance.
>
> I especially like the third point about background information.
Yes. You need much more background information than I can provide.
Ever consider a nursery school? There are plenty of other little
spoiled brats whining "Why? Why?" no matter what response is given.
You will fit right in.
> Hersheyh you don't want to tell me what is your intent with
> *selection*. Are you talking about the "selection force"? If not then
> why are you using the word "selection" then.
I am talking about the *act* that the dumb unintelligent environment
can perform: namely discriminate between choices, allowing one to
reproduce more than the other. IOW, exactly the *act* described as
"selection".
backspace
> In article <1186260714.872588.266...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >On Aug 4, 9:24 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Two things, with some background. DNA contains the instructions for
> >> building an organism; it is normally duplicated along with the organism
> >> during reproduction. First, "Random Mutation" means that during the
> >> process of reproducing the DNA for a new organism, errors sometimes
> >> creep into the copy. The location and effect of the mutations is not
> >> predictable.
>
> >> Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
> >> allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
> >This can't be falsified. No matter what happens you would tell me the
> >same story.
>
> Easily falsifiable, for example if you could show that mutations have no
> effect on the reproductive success of the creatures being studied then
> that would falsify evolution.
Reproductive success is not defined says Greg Leach
http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/criteria/2nd_meeting/guidelines1.shtml
16A. Reproductive success (USA)
For the purposes of this resolution, reproductive success is defined
as any measure of the fecundity, heterozygosity, genetic variability,
or intrinsic growth rate within or among populations.
Comments from USA
16B. Reproductive success (Greg Leach) There is no definition of the
term in the current Annex 5 nor has IUCN found it necessary to define
it in their extensive review if the IUCN criteria. I offer the
following:
"...Reproductive success of an individual or population is a measure
of the number of individuals that make it to reproductive maturity
from one generation to the next. It is the extent of realisation of
the reproductive potential...."
Now if only Greg would tell me what is his intent with "success" and
how did he formally establish this definition.
The Wikipedia entry also don't tell us who defined RS. Nothing in
this whole evolution debate is defined which makes it so exasperating.
We are haveing endless discussion because everybody refuses to define
their terms.
Timberwoof
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, yes, it can be falsified. The hypothesis is that the
environment does not permit certain organisms to and reproduce. Thus
only certain organisms reproduce, and as the environment changes, some
species will die out and others change to become new species more suited
to the changed environment.
A disproof of this hypothesis would be that all organisms would
continue to reproduce unchanged despite changes in the environment, that
there would be a myriad of species, and there would be no extinction of
species.
However, some species do go extinct and other do change into new forms.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
backspace
> Selection refers to the action, not the actor. My very old dictionary
> says that 'selection' is "The *act* [my emphasis] of choosing and
> taking from among a number." No requirement that the *act* be
> performed by a 'conscious' agent.
cases the signal sender and signal receiver agree that the intent with
"selection" was a conscious selection. You are making a perfectly
normal word "selection" undefined via your language terrorism. This is
just a point of logic. Because really the problem is that you have
decided that there is no God. The irony is that you have replaced God
with a nature God by using anthromorphozising terms.
One can certainly reason that there is no God, but don't change the
defined meaning and intent with *selection* in the process. As far as
your dictionary definition is concerned the intent it conveys to me
with *act* is a conscious act towards a goal. If you think about it
the entire atheist argument pivots around this single word
*selection". Dawkins talks about the "Principle of Selection". Nobody
of course knows what this is. Your entire line of reasoning against
God is essentially a semantic one by changeing the meaning of language
itself.
As Dr.Wilkins said "...there is a problem with language itself..."
Which means that there is a problem with that very sentence itself
since he made it with his language. And if he thinks there is a
problem with his language then why should we believe anything he says?
Matthew Isleb
> On Aug 5, 3:32 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Selection refers to the action, not the actor. My very old dictionary
>> says that 'selection' is "The *act* [my emphasis] of choosing and
>> taking from among a number." No requirement that the *act* be
>> performed by a 'conscious' agent.
> Which means that we are not in the same language universe. In 99% of
> cases the signal sender and signal receiver agree that the intent with
> "selection" was a conscious selection. You are making a perfectly normal
> word "selection" undefined via your language terrorism.
Heh, how ironic. You just used the word "terrorism" in a way that has
absolutely nothing to do with its actual meaning while accusing someone
else of inventing a new meaning (or taking away meaning) of a word. You,
sir, are committing language genocide!
> This is just a point of logic.
Semantics. Not logic.
> Because really the problem is that you have decided that
> there is no God. The irony is that you have replaced God with a nature
> God by using anthromorphozising terms.
Wait, if he was assigning God qualities to nature, woudln't that be
something like "theopomorphizing?" Sorry, maybe there is a real word for
that. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't anthropomorphizing. Unless you
want to argue that since man is supposedly made in the image of God,
ascribing God-like qualities to something that isn't God is really
assigning human qualities which is therefore anthropomorphization. Ugh, my
head hurts..
> One can certainly reason that
> there is no God, but don't change the defined meaning and intent with
> *selection* in the process. As far as your dictionary definition is
> concerned the intent it conveys to me with *act* is a conscious act
> towards a goal.
Really? So when I say my computer is "acting funny" does that mean that I
am attributing consciousness to my computer? Does my computer have the
"goal" of breaking down? I can think of many examples where "acting" is
not necessarily a conscious thing.
> If you think about it the entire atheist argument pivots
> around this single word *selection". Dawkins talks about the "Principle
> of Selection". Nobody of course knows what this is.
Seems clear enough to me.
> Your entire line of
> reasoning against God is essentially a semantic one by changeing the
> meaning of language itself.
I went back and read through the thread and I didn't see any arguments
against God. Or are you referencing some arguments made outside this
thread? I'm confused.
> As Dr.Wilkins said "...there is a problem with language itself..." Which
> means that there is a problem with that very sentence itself since he
> made it with his language. And if he thinks there is a problem with his
> language then why should we believe anything he says?
*boggle*
-matthew
JQ
> On Aug 4, 12:18 pm, JQ <jac...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 4:49 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > mutation?
>
> Well that you should ask Jerry Coynehttp://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807
> Coyne: "..Evolution is manifestly not a chance process because of the
> order produced by natural selection--order that can, over vast periods
> of time, result in complex organisms looking as if they were designed
> to fit their environment. Humans, the product of *NON-RANDOM Natural
> Selection*, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways
> they are even more complex. The explanation of seeming design by
> solely materialistic processes was Darwin's greatest achievement, and
> a major source of discomfort for those holding the view that nature
> was designed by God...."
>
> And JQ I presume you know that Random Mutation was only coined in 1910
> and that the intent with "mutation" here
> is genetic mutation. Darwin's intent with 'transmutation' was the
> transformation of one species into another. Darwin didn't know about
> genes. Yet most people use RM with the intent of conveying that Darwin
> somehow established something got "randomed". Dr. Shapiro says there
> is nothing random going on in the genenome.
>
> Darwin never used "random" nor had such pragmatics with his usage of
> "chance" which said was an "...incorrect expression" after using it
> throughout his book. Such absurdity won't be tolerated in a peer
> reviewed journal.
My point is that natural selection in non-random. I was trying to work
out what you meant by random natural selection.
Wakboth
> Inez wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 10:22 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 3:28 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't know why you think that adding the qualifier "non-random" to
> > an term describing a process no one thought was random changes the
> > meaning. I guess you just are thickheaded that way.
>
> Well what then is the intent with RM+NS - Random mutation and Natural
> Selection? If your pragmatics with NS is non-random NS (whatever NS
> is) then how must I understand RM+NS.
I now see what your problem is: you're a nitwit.
To use maths-style parenthetical notation, it is (random mutation) +
(natural selection), not random * (mutation + natural selection).
-- Wakboth
Steven J.
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:27:39 -0000, "Steven J."
>
> >On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> >Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
>
> It seems perfectly reasonable to ask about the random and non random
> aspects of Natural Selection. And with respect to what aspects is
> Natural Selection "random" or "non random." Atheists portray Natural
> Selection in anthropomorphic and teleological terms, offer simplistic
> examples, ignore significant environmental variables and the random
> events that occur. For example, the fastest gazelle can still trip
> and break its leg and be caught by its predator lion.
>
two unmated gazelles, identical twins, standing next to one another.
Lightning strikes and kills one; the other bounds away and later mates
and produces offspring. By definition, they have identical "fitness,"
but obviously have different levels of reproductive success. This is
why "fitness" is defined in terms of expected rather than actual
reproductive success: it is the difference in the *chance* of
reproductive success between a given individual and the average within
the group.
Natural selection is an outcome, not a process, and applies to
populations, not to individuals. Over time, because survival has a
significant nonrandom component, inheritable traits will change in a
nonrandom fashion. This is what happens to human-bred populations
undergoing artificial selection, and therefore, by analogy, Darwin
referred to this result of differential reproductive success as
"natural selection." In your reply, of course, you point all this out
to me as though I had not made the point before and as though you
supposed I did not realize it.
Darwin himself notes (and I think that few if any evolutionists since
have forgotten) that not all variation among individuals is due to
inheritable differences, and that not all differences in reproductive
success are due to variation among individuals. Certainly "time and
chance happen to all," but this is not, strictly speaking, a "random"
component of natural selection; natural selection is what happens in
spite of these random components.
I notice that you have responded to me in this thread, making a great
many points that contradict nothing I have actually said in the post
you are supposedly addressing, while you have not yet addressed the
arguments I made against your post titled "Steven J's failure to
identify the premises, the conclusion, or much of anything else."
Obviously it is your right to decide for yourself which of my posts,
if any, you will critique, but given that your own positions were at
stake in that other thread, and nothing you bring up was really at
issue in this one, your choice might be construed by unfriendly
readers as an attempt to dodge a refutation by changing the subject.
>
> >"Random," as used by evolutionists, means, "random with respect to the
> >needs of the organism."
>
> Nucleotide point mutations are random variables in the sense that they
> occur with a fixed frequency and according to a know probability
> distribution. As such these mutations are random with respect to
> EVERY attribute of the individual not just the single attribute of
> NEED. The proposition "random with respect to the needs of the
> individual" was offered by Darwin specifically to restrict
> consideration of genuinely non random and teleological possibilitiies.
>
In at least some species, mutation rates increase under certain forms
of stress, and mutation rates vary from taxon to taxon, so I do not
think you are justified in asserting that they occur with a "fixed
frequency." Mutations (you have pointed this out yourself) are more
common in some parts of the genome than others, and I don't think all
the "hot spots" (or corresponding "cold spots") are known, so it seems
premature to say that they happen with "a known probability
distribution." And if they are random with respect to EVERY aspect of
the individual, they are certainly random with respect to its needs;
it is beyond my comprehension how mutations could be non-random and
teleological with respect to the needs of the organism and yet random
with respect to every aspect of its genetic and anatomical
constitution.
You seem to be stringing words together here in a desperate hope that
an argument will materialize by spontaneous generation.
Incidentally, not all mutations are single-nucleotide ("point")
substitutions, although those are the most common. There are also
insertions or deletions of one or more nucleotides, translocations of
sections of the genome, and duplications of sections of the genome.
As I note below, Darwin's theory of natural selection does not
actually require that variation be "random," although that is the
easiest assumption to model and, furthermore, is supported by the
actual evidence on mutations.
>
> > When it is said that mutations are random,
> >what that means is that, e.g. a fox born into a cold, snowy
> >environment is no more or less likely to have mutations for stocky
> >build, short ears, thick fur, or light fur, than a fox born into a
> >temperate forest environment or one born into a desert environment.
> >But whether a particular mutation spreads through a population is not
> >random with respect to the needs of the organism; a fox with a
> >mutation for thick fur is more likely to survive and leave many
> >offspring if it lives in the Arctic than if it lives in a Mexican
> >desert, whereas the reverse is true for a fox with a mutation for a
> >long-limbed, slender build. "Random natural selection" seems, at
> >first and, for that matter, at second glance like a contradiction in
> >terms.
>
> Natural Selection can explain the change in frequency of EXISTING
> characteristics within a population (as with the changing frequency of
> finch beak sizes and industrial moth coloring) within limits defined
> by the existing genome of the population through differential
> reproduction and survival. How Natural Selection guided some
> purported series of random mutations to achieve these novel
> populations in the first place is never explained.
>
Once a mutation occurs, it IS an existing characteristic within a
population. And, obviously, if the existing gene pool of a population
defines limits for that population (although, since the effects of a
gene are simply its effects in a particular environment, changes to
the environment can change the limits of what a gene pool of a
population can produce, even without changes to the gene pool), then
mutations can change the limits. A single mutation can create new
color possibilities for the peppered moth, or new potential for beak
sizes among finches.
Your last sentence is a bit unclear. Are you saying that there are
neither verbal descriptions nor mathematical models of how natural
selection works? There are of course both. Or are you saying that
there is no mutation-by-mutation description of the evolution from
fish jaw to avian bill? That is true, but it seems a rather
extravagant thing to ask before you will accept that natural selection
actually has the power to transform populations.
>
> This also applies to examples of anti-bacterial resistance. Resistence
> is developed as the result of a loss of sensitivity to the
> anti-bacterial agent. That is, something was broken and usually this
> "breaking" causes other problems for the organism making it less fit
> outside the catastrophic enviroment. When the anti-bacterial
> environment disappears the resistent mutatant variation almost
> disappear. These are not examples of the Natural Selection adding
> coherence, and progressive develpment to the otherwise random source
> of change. And coherence and progressive development are what is
> required to explain non random emergence and develpment to some novel
> biological feature.
>
Tony, would you describe putting on a bullet-proof vest as "losing
sensitivity" to bullets? Antibiotic resistance generally involves
changing a biochemical pathway to avoid using a particular component
that is disabled by the antibiotic. "Loss of sensitivity" is an odd
way to express that, though I suppose it is necessary to maintain your
dogma that mutations always cause "loss of information." There are,
by the way, cases of bacterial strains that have evolved under
selection pressure from antibiotics to be able to reproduce as fast
(even in the absence of antibiotics) as their nonresistant kin.
May I point out that you have never bothered to explain how you
distinguish between "novel features" and new features, resulting from
mutation and natural selection, that are not "novel?"
>
> Finally Steven J ignores a host of problems associated with spreading
> a large series of putative point mutations throughout the population
> not the least of which is Haldane's Dilemma.
>
"Putative?" Having asserted that mutations occur at a known regular
rate, are you now implying that they are not really known to happen at
all? Haldane's dilemma applies if two beneficial mutations are not
linked to one another, and if selection is "hard" (periods of intense
selection reduce the total percentage of the population that succeeds
reproducing) rather than "soft." Haldane himself did not think that
the limits he calculated (ca. 1 mutation reaching fixation every 300
generations) were slower than the actual rate of evolutionary change
estimated on the basis of theory, but both this and the validity of
his calculations on the limits of evolutionary speed have been
challenged.
>
> >Now, one can speak meaningfully of non-random mutation:
>
> Steven J can't do anthing such thing. At least not from his
> misleading example.
>
Tony, do you think you'll enjoy arguing in English once you learn to
speak it? I did not say that one could demonstrate that there *are*
non-random mutations; I said that one can speak of what such mutations
would be like, if they occurred.
>
> > natural
> >selection would have an easier time of it if, e.g. having some poison
> >in the environment made mutations for resistance to that poison more
> >common than they would be in an equally stressful environment that did
> >not contain that poison.
>
> This assumes that there is suffient time given the mutation rate and
> the reproductive rate to produce the number of changes to resist some
> poison environment.
>
Are you paying any attention at all to the points you are supposedly
rebutting? I am discussing, here, a purely hypothetical case, in
which the rate of certain sorts of mutations go up when those sorts of
mutations are beneficial, and goes down when those sorts of mutations
are detrimental. I am not claiming that anything like this occurs in
the real world. Of course, given the real-world evolution of
organisms from penicillin-resistant _E. coli_ to metal-tolerant plants
growing in soil contaminated by mine tailings, your quibble would be
wrong even if it had something to do with my point.
>
> Behe's latest book using the malarial parasite's resistance to
> malarial treatments (two mutations occurred together) illustrates
> these problems and he concludes that the edge beyond which
> neoDarwinism lacks the resources to tread is there---just beyond two
> mutations. Behe shows that in its arms race with its human opponent
> the malarial parasite has not been able to overcome human sickle cell
> and beta thalasemia resistance to their attacks which would require
> many more than two mutations to overcome even given its tremendous
> reproductive rate and numbers.
>
Behe speaks of two or more *simultaneous* mutations. His argument in
_The Edge of Evolution_ is similar to that in _Darwin's Black Box_: in
both books, he is arguing that evolving certain adaptions step by step
would require that parts of the solution be conserved, waiting for the
next mutation, even though without that next mutation the first
mutation provided no benefit. So, Behe argues, all the necessary
steps have to occur at once in the same individual, and this is simply
astronomically unlikely for for than two simultaneous mutations to a
gene. This may actually be true, with regard to certain adaptions
(such as adaption to the sickle cell trait) that haven't actually
happened.
Still, Behe has been shown wrong in several respects, not least his
analysis of the _Plasmodium_ mutations. He claims that two particular
mutations are needed to confer chloroquinine resistance, but the very
studies he cites show that a limited CQR resistance can be conferred
by one of these mutations (allowing for step-by-step accumulation of
increasing resistance, rather than "all or nothing," two mutations at
once, aquisition). In addition, he does not consider whether any
possible mutations that have not been observed might confer CQR; he
assumes that the solution observed is the only possible one, which may
or may not be true. Arthur Hunt, on the Panda's Thumb blog, has
posted a summary of a peer-reviewed article which shows the evolution,
through mutation and natural selection, of just the sort of adaption
that Behe claims is beyond the "edge of evolution:" <http://
www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/reality_1_behe.html#more>.
>
> Behe also reports that after a particular malarial treatment is
> discontinued in an area (due to anti-biotic resistance) that the
> malarial parasite population reverts back to the "normal" strain.
> Again while this is evidence of natural selection in action it is not
> a demonstration of the coherence and progressivity necessary to
> explain the emergence and deveopment of novel structures, systems and
> organisms.
>
Minor quibble: chloroquinine is not an antibiotic, in the strict
sense. Behe has demonstrated that, over a few human generations and
under shifting and temporary selective regimes, little evolutionary
change typically occurs in a lineage (although, in a few cases,
speciation has been observed in a few human generations). This falls
rather short (as do the rest of Behe's arguments) of showing that
there is some insurmountable barrier to the evolution, through
mutation and natural selection, of true "novelty" or "new kinds."
>
> > By the same token, natrural selection would
> >work less well if a mutation that was useful in hot environments were
> >more likely to show up in cold environments, and vice-versa.
>
> A mutation may not simply be an improvement with respect to one
> environmental factor. There may be an offseting difficulty with
> respect to other environmental conditions. Next Natural Selection may
> "choose" a point mutation in the next generation which blocks or
> negates the positive addition in the first. There is no evidence that
> Natural Selection----that is, differential survival conjoined to
> differential reproduction----can coherently and progressively lead to
> novel complex structures, structures, systems and organisms.
>
Minor quibble: again, not all mutations are point mutations. Natural
selection may equally well cause two separate mutations that,
combined, reinforce one another to promote fitness, to spread through
the population so that in fact they are combined in more and more
individuals. Again, you have not offered any testable criterion for
what constitutes a "novel complex structure" or distinguishes it from
non-novel, simple structures. Your argument comes down to "perhaps
there is some unknown barrier that would arise in the course of
evolution that would limit how far evolution could go." Perhaps there
is, but there is no evidence of such a thing.
>
> All of the putative examples of Natural Selection in action, like
> anti-bacterial resistance, involve at most two relevant mutations and
> even these lead nowhere.
>
When a lineage has accumulated two beneficial mutations, what magical
force steps in to prevent it from accumulating a third, fourth, etc.?
>
> >At third glance, perhaps some sense can be made of your question,
> >though. Natural selection, as scientists understand it, works to
> >adapt organisms to their present, particular environment. Natural
> >selection can't favor a trait that makes it harder to find food, or
> >avoid becoming food, or find a mate, here and now, even if, a few
> >centuries down the road, your descendants living in a different
> >environment would find that trait useful.
>
> First, Steven J treats "Natural Selection" as if it were some
> teleological agent which "works" on behalf of all organisms towards
> some distant fitness "peak." It is nothing like this. It is little
> more than a label which captures the effects of "differential
> survival" conjoined to "differential reproduction." Steven J offers
> an over simplified explanation which fails to take into account the
> fact that stochastic events in any local environment often have a
> significant effect on survival and reproductive success.
>
No, I don't do the things you accuse me of.
>
> > Natural selection
> >(differential reproductive success of variant offspring) could
> >therefore be said to be "random" with respect to any particular long-
> >term destination (e.g. at the start of the Triassic, natural selection
> >on basal archosaurs was not aiming at birds, and in a different
> >Triassic traits different traits, perhaps incompatible with evolution
> >into birds, would have survived) one might imagine for a population.
>
> Natural Selection yields adaptation to changing local environments and
> then only with respect to the expression of EXISTING characteristics
> not future ones. As Steven J reports these changes are effectively
> random with respect to any putative progressive change. S. J. Gould
> doubted that a case could be made for natural selection having any
> bias for leading to progressive complexity; he rather saw the
> opposite.
>
That was not quite my point, actually. Gould noted that there was no
global tendency, in evolution, towards greater complexity, and that
any net increase in average complexity could be accounted for because,
after all, there was no place to go but up, since there's a lower
level of complexity for living things. But this is about the averate
complexity of all living things; it says nothing about the possibility
of increasing complexity and sophistication within particular
lineages, while others remain at the same level of complexity or even
lose complexity. Nor was my point quite that natural selection can't
work on traits that aren't in the population yet, although, for once,
you're right about that. My point is that natural selection *now*
can't, so far as anyone can tell, be influenced by what traits will be
beneficial to some possible far future descendant of the population
under selection.
>
> How this leads to the conclusion that Natural Selection is non random
> with respect to the emergence of novelty is beyond me and would seem
> to argue against the neoDarwinian mechanism having the sufficient
> causal power to explain biological diversity.
>
I don't believe I was arguing that natural selection is "non-random
with respect to the emergence of novelty." Apparently, even reading
for comprehension is beyond you.
>
> >Natural selection *now* isn't, e.g. favoring traits in racoons on the
> >grounds that, fifty million years from now, those traits will be
> >useful when their descendants evolve abstract intelligence and
> >language.
>
> >If "natural selection" were less of a metaphor -- if it really
> >involved some "thing" that actually examined and selected -- this
> >might not be so. One might conceive of a neo-Lamarckian sort of
> >selection that always kept in mind where a lineage was supposed to be
> >heading over the long term. But currently, no mechanism is known or
> >even imagined that could accomplish this.
>
> But there is an alternative---intelligent design. ID has the causal
> power to explain the origin of complex structures, systems and
> organisms. Darwin dismissed design by using an argument from
> imperfection. Gould used the same argument to dismiss design when
> discussing the Panda's thumb. Both were theological arguments not
> scientific ones. Behe's and Dembski's argument trump Darwin and Gould
> by using accepted to science to introduce ID.
>
First of all, ID has the "causal power" to explain the origin of
complex adaptions in the same sense that elves with antigravity magic
wands have the "causal power" to explain how the pyramids were built.
If you ignore all questions of the nature of the putative designer(s),
how design is produced, how design is implemented, the purpose of
design from the standpoint of the putative designer(s), and so forth,
and just insist that the intelligent designer(s) must have whatever
(unknown) capabilities are necessary to account for something, then,
yes, ID has scads of causal power, albeit not more than any other sort
of magic. What it lacks is actual explanatory power, testability, and
evidence beyond "god of the gaps" arguments.
Second of all, Darwin dismissed design by showing that it lacked the
explanatory power of common descent and natural selection. To the
extent that he used "imperfection" as an argument, he was simply
showing that to the extent that design implied predictions, it implied
falsified predictions (and to the extent that it does not imply
predictions, it is very unsatisfactory as a scientific theory). The
point of the "panda's thumb" argument is not "imperfection" as such,
it is that we don't, in fact, see "common design for common
functions;" we see, on the one hand, disparate design for common
functions (opportunistic modifications of different structures to
adapt to the same problem), and on the other, common design for
disparate functions (opportunistic modifications of the same structure
for different functions in different lineages).
It is very annoying, by the way, to have ID proponents insist on
invoking God in scientific theories and then telling scientists they
can't make theological arguments (or, conversely, to insist that
"Designer" need not be a synonym for "God," and then insisting that
any inquiry into the nature, motives, or methods of the Designer is
necessarily "theological"). But since you yourself apparently find it
annoying to have your self-contradictions pointed out, I will not
insist that your position is self-contradictory here.
However, third, arguments from ignorance (we have no detailed
explanation in terms of known mechanisms, so we're going to insist
that one particular unknown, untestable, undescribed, Agent is
responsible) are not really "accepted science." They do not become
so simply because one scours peer-reviewed journals for unsolved
problems rather than decades-old popular texts.
>
> Behe's ID argument is grounded in real world biology and in what is
> biologically reasonable as opposed to atheist theoretical
> possibilities and if-so stories. Dembski's ID argument is well
> grounded in the accepted sciences of Information Theory and
> Probability Theory. So far the atheist world has been impotent
> against Irreducible Complexity and no one has shown any fatal flaws in
> Dembski's theory.
>
Tony, please take your fingers out of your ears, and use them to
remove that blindfold you've placed over your eyes. "Irreducible
complexity" (or, more properly, "interlocking complexity") was
described as a possible *consequence* of mutation and natural
selection before Behe was ever born, by the geneticist Herman
Mueller. The main flaw in this particular demolition of Behe is that
Behe has never, strictly speaking, shown that any of the biochemical
systems he discusses actually are IC. The only fatal flaws in
Dembski's explanatory filter are [a] that the clear-cut lines he
implies among "law," "chance," and "design" do not and cannot exist,
and that to apply his filter to any useful effect would require
knowing every possible interaction of every regularity in the
universe. In short, if you're effectively omniscient, you can use the
filter to tell if something is "designed." Of course, if you're
effectively omniscient, you really wouldn't have to use the filter,
would you?
>
> Behe's current argument concerning the limits of the neoDarwinian
> mechanism is even more devasting than IC
>
It would be hard-pressed to be less "devastating," anyway.
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> meant, you would not be confused.
> Klaus
Ofcourse "Selection" is non-random. So in other words your intent with
NS is to say that the process is *directed*.
Directed by whom?
Steven J.
random with respect to the season of the year: it's not just
coincidence that we get a lot more cold days (at least here in central
Illinois -- Australian mileage may vary) in January than in July).
Survival of penicillin-resistant _E. coli_ in a petri dish is not
random with respect to the presence or absence of penicillin, but no
one is going around shooting individual bacteria to direct the course
of the colony.
-- Steven J.
hersheyh
> > On Aug 4, 9:24 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Two things, with some background. DNA contains the instructions for
> > > building an organism; it is normally duplicated along with the organism
> > > during reproduction. First, "Random Mutation" means that during the
> > > process of reproducing the DNA for a new organism, errors sometimes
> > > creep into the copy. The location and effect of the mutations is not
> > > predictable.
>
> > > Second, "Natural Selection" means that the environment then
> > > allows or does not allow the organism to survive and reproduce.
> > This can't be falsified. No matter what happens you would tell me the
> > same story.
Actually I have already explained to backspace that, for there to be
*selection*, it is required that there be a statistically significant
difference in the reproductive success of two different phenotypes in
a population due to a particular environment. Without this
*significant* effect of *selection* (as defined by my dictionary,
which does not require that there be a conscious 'selector')
occurring, what we observe is "neutral drift". And I even pointed out
that most selection is conservative in nature; that is, it preserves
already reached optimi rather than causing change. Change, in the
absence of significant conservative or non-conservative selection, is
impossible to prevent. It will occur at a specific rate that is a
consequence of the mutation rate.
> Actually, yes, it can be falsified. The hypothesis is that the
> environment does not permit certain organisms to and reproduce. Thus
> only certain organisms reproduce, and as the environment changes, some
> species will die out and others change to become new species more suited
> to the changed environment.
>
> A disproof of this hypothesis would be that all organisms would
> continue to reproduce unchanged despite changes in the environment, that
> there would be a myriad of species, and there would be no extinction of
> species.
Actually, the disproof of *selection* is that the rate of reproductive
success between two phenotypes is not significantly different on a
generation to generation basis. Again, conservative selection is
required to *prevent* phenotypic change over time. In the absence of
selection, we would see the 'drunkard's walk' and fixation of new
neutral variants producing change in a fashion that is stochastically
predictable.
> However, some species do go extinct and other do change into new forms.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." æ°—hris L.
hersheyh
> On Aug 5, 3:32 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Selection refers to the action, not the actor. My very old dictionary
> > says that 'selection' is "The *act* [my emphasis] of choosing and
> > taking from among a number." No requirement that the *act* be
> > performed by a 'conscious' agent.
>
> Which means that we are not in the same language universe. In 99% of
> cases the signal sender and signal receiver agree that the intent with
> "selection" was a conscious selection. You are making a perfectly
> normal word "selection" undefined via your language terrorism.
Since when is the *proper* use of a clearly defined concept "language
terrorism"? You are the one imposing a novel requirement to the word,
namely *requiring* that the word 'selection' is not simply a
description of an *act*, but also requires that the *act* be performed
by a 'conscious agent'.
> This is
> just a point of logic. Because really the problem is that you have
> decided that there is no God. The irony is that you have replaced God
> with a nature God by using anthromorphozising terms.
Take your complaint to Webster. I am using the term 'selection' quite
properly. *You* are the one engaged in "language terrorism".
> One can certainly reason that there is no God, but don't change the
> defined meaning and intent with *selection* in the process. As far as
> your dictionary definition is concerned the intent it conveys to me
> with *act* is a conscious act towards a goal.
And that is a f**king lie. Especially since you purposely snipped,
without marking it, the point that one of the examples of "selective"
that the dictionary used was "selective absorption". So that must
mean that you think 'color' is a conscious agent, since it is 'color'
that selectively absorbs light of different wavelengths and not,
AFAICT, a conscious agent.
>If you think about it
> the entire atheist argument pivots around this single word
> *selection".
No. *Your* entire argument pivots around this single word and your
dishonest "language terrorism" attempts to add the need for a
*conscious actor* for their to be an *act* of selection. My argument
is not the one that involves this particularly stupid and childish
form of language terrorism.
> Dawkins talks about the "Principle of Selection". Nobody
> of course knows what this is. Your entire line of reasoning against
> God is essentially a semantic one by changeing the meaning of language
> itself.
Where did *I* change the language? *You* are the one demanding that
'selection' must *always* be an *act* performed by a *conscious
actor*. The dictionary says it doesn't. I certainly agree that
selection *can* be performed by a conscious actor. But there is
nothing in the linguistic use of the word in common English that
requires this. Unless you think that terms like "selective absorption"
are also part of an atheistic conspiracy by physicists and chemists.
You are the one playing a silly semantic game, engaging in "language
terrorism" to insist that whenever the word 'selection' is used it
must always imply that the *act* described be performed by a conscious
actor. Everyone who even bothers to look at your argument can see
that. Don't think you are fooling anyone into thinking you know
anything worth knowing.
hersheyh
Directed (or caused) by *what*, not *whom*. The *act* of selection
does not, as a matter of semantics, require a *conscious* actor or
*conscious* causal agency. Unless, of course, one is engaged in
"language terrorism" of the sort you are currently engaged in.
stew dean
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:27:39 -0000, "Steven J."
>
> >On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> >Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
>
> It seems perfectly reasonable to ask about the random and non random
> aspects of Natural Selection. And with respect to what aspects is
> Natural Selection "random" or "non random." Atheists portray Natural
> Selection in anthropomorphic and teleological terms, offer simplistic
> examples, ignore significant environmental variables and the random
> events that occur. For example, the fastest gazelle can still trip
> and break its leg and be caught by its predator lion.
I'm going to just cover this point. The ability of the gazelle will
make it more or less likely to trip. There will always be the
unpredictable in any environment, consider it noise in the system.
This is not really truely random though. The tripping, in this case,
is down to the gazelle doing something that leads to the trip and the
creature would be open to it's legs being broken in such a case.
So taking the tripping example there are multiple factors here that
can be selected against. Many fall under the ability not to trip in
the first place. Then there's all those that determine how the
creature reacts or is harmed when it does trip. How a creature deals
with accidents and the unforseen is as much a part of nautral
selection as avoiding harm in the first place.
Every single variable of the environment goes up to determine the
outcome of an individual. BUT and this is a big but, evolution really
works at the population level over time. So only when new useful
genetic information first arises in the population do the events of an
individual have a potential big knock on effect.
Fitness for an individual is also not black and white, there is not
way measure fitness without the creature interacting over time with
the environment (something fans of eugenics didnt understand).
Stew Dean
Cj
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> As Dr.Wilkins said "...there is a problem with language itself..."
> Which means that there is a problem with that very sentence itself
> since he made it with his language. And if he thinks there is a
> problem with his language then why should we believe anything he says?
The problem with his language is that you don't understand it.
Cj
backspace
> > > Natural selection is none random. If you knew what the word "selection"
> > > meant, you would not be confused.
> > > Klaus
> > Ofcourse "Selection" is non-random. So in other words your intent with
> > NS is to say that the process is *directed*.
> > Directed by whom?
> Directed (or caused) by *what*, not *whom*. The *act* of selection
> does not, as a matter of semantics, require a *conscious* actor or
> *conscious* causal agency. Unless, of course, one is engaged in
> "language terrorism" of the sort you are currently engaged in.
You just don't seem to get my point. I am asking for a word that we
can agree on to in 95% of all sentences to or implie conscious
"selection" even and the other 5% it is used like for example a
"....sieve selecting the small stones....". Obviously the sieve is not
conscious and using "selection" in this context is acceptable since
the signal receiver and signal sender both understand the intent
within the context of the sentence. The trouble comes with biology
where we everybody is just hammering away with "selections" all over
the place. The intent or pragmatics is not clear. For some interpret
this as a "Nature selection force". I am at a loss as to what you are
tying to convey with
this 'selection' word the whole time when describing a tiger. Jerry
Coyne's entire rebuttal of Behe's book pivoted on one single word that
he chanted like an entranced zombie 50 times : Selection.
So what does "selection" mean? It all depends on the intent with the
word. Before Darwin hijacked it in 1859 "selection" was understood and
used by everybody with the intent of conscious selection. If your
intent is to say that nature as some sort of pantheistic "selection"
force "selects" for the outcome then the word "selection" is perfectly
acceptable. But you are saying that this is not your pragmatics or
intent. I am asking then why on earth are you using "selection" then?
And the same goes for "reproductive success", nobody can tell me what
is up with this "success" business.
hersheyh
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:27:39 -0000, "Steven J."
>
> <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 4, 2:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> >Your question has no ... what was your term? Pragmatics?
>
> It seems perfectly reasonable to ask about the random and non random
> aspects of Natural Selection. And with respect to what aspects is
> Natural Selection "random" or "non random."
Natural selection only exists when there is a statistically
significant deviation from "random" change, generation to generation,
in allele frequencies. IOW, natural selection is the additional and
directional (either conservative or non-conservative) change in allele
frequencies above the natural (random) background of change. Natural
selection does not prevent random events unrelated to selection. It
merely ensures a statistically significant directionality in one of
two directions, conservative or non-conservative.
> Atheists portray Natural
> Selection in anthropomorphic and teleological terms, offer simplistic
> examples, ignore significant environmental variables and the random
> events that occur. For example, the fastest gazelle can still trip
> and break its leg and be caught by its predator lion.
Selection is only measureable at the level of a *population*, not an
individual. Remember that selection does not *prevent* random events
from happening to particular individuals. But, measured over a
population, you may find that faster gazelles tend to be *less likely*
to be lion food.
> >"Random," as used by evolutionists, means, "random with respect to the
> >needs of the organism."
>
> Nucleotide point mutations are random variables in the sense that they
> occur with a fixed frequency and according to a know probability
> distribution. As such these mutations are random with respect to
> EVERY attribute of the individual not just the single attribute of
> NEED. The proposition "random with respect to the needs of the
> individual" was offered by Darwin specifically to restrict
> consideration of genuinely non random and teleological possibilitiies.
So what are you saying? That it is in fact TRUE that mutation is
random wrt need, but because the idea was introduced by Darwin (which
I actually doubt, since the word 'mutation' had yet to be invented) it
is an evil atheist conspiracy? Or are you claiming that variation (a
word that Darwin might have used) does not occur randomly wrt need?
> > When it is said that mutations are random,
> >what that means is that, e.g. a fox born into a cold, snowy
> >environment is no more or less likely to have mutations for stocky
> >build, short ears, thick fur, or light fur, than a fox born into a
> >temperate forest environment or one born into a desert environment.
> >But whether a particular mutation spreads through a population is not
> >random with respect to the needs of the organism; a fox with a
> >mutation for thick fur is more likely to survive and leave many
> >offspring if it lives in the Arctic than if it lives in a Mexican
> >desert, whereas the reverse is true for a fox with a mutation for a
> >long-limbed, slender build. "Random natural selection" seems, at
> >first and, for that matter, at second glance like a contradiction in
> >terms.
>
> Natural Selection can explain the change in frequency of EXISTING
> characteristics within a population (as with the changing frequency of
> finch beak sizes and industrial moth coloring) within limits defined
> by the existing genome of the population through differential
> reproduction and survival.
As opposed to NS working on nonexistent characteristics? Of course
selection can only work on EXISTING characteristics. The repetoire of
existing characteristics in a population can certainly change over
sufficiently long periods of time.
> How Natural Selection guided some
> purported series of random mutations to achieve these novel
> populations in the first place is never explained.
Novel? Although mutation can produce 'novelty' in some senses of
'novel' (new functions can emerge as a consequence of changes; mosaic
proteins with new combinations of moieties can be produced), it
typically produces change by 'modification' of existing structures and
features.
> This also applies to examples of anti-bacterial resistance. Resistence
> is developed as the result of a loss of sensitivity to the
> anti-bacterial agent. That is, something was broken and usually this
> "breaking" causes other problems for the organism making it less fit
> outside the catastrophic enviroment. When the anti-bacterial
> environment disappears the resistent mutatant variation almost
> disappear. These are not examples of the Natural Selection adding
> coherence, and progressive develpment to the otherwise random source
> of change. And coherence and progressive development are what is
> required to explain non random emergence and develpment to some novel
> biological feature.
No. Evolution is not in the business of producing *progress*, which
is a teleologic idea that, as you point out, is rejected by biologists
as untenable and unsupported by evidence. It is only in the business
of producing optimal fitness to the conditions faced by one's parents.
> Finally Steven J ignores a host of problems associated with spreading
> a large series of putative point mutations throughout the population
> not the least of which is Haldane's Dilemma.
Well, it has been *claimed* that Haldane's Dilemma is a problem. It
isn't.
> >Now, one can speak meaningfully of non-random mutation:
>
> Steven J can't do anthing such thing. At least not from his
> misleading example.
>
> > natural
> >selection would have an easier time of it if, e.g. having some poison
> >in the environment made mutations for resistance to that poison more
> >common than they would be in an equally stressful environment that did
> >not contain that poison.
>
> This assumes that there is suffient time given the mutation rate and
> the reproductive rate to produce the number of changes to resist some
> poison environment.
>
> Behe's latest book using the malarial parasite's resistance to
> malarial treatments (two mutations occurred together) illustrates
> these problems and he concludes that the edge beyond which
> neoDarwinism lacks the resources to tread is there---just beyond two
> mutations.
It should be noted that there are resistances to malaria-fighting
drugs that require 4 mutations (for full effectiveness) that have
arisen in just 40 years. Behe engages in hinky math (with odd
assumptions) that comes to conclusions that differ from all the
mathematicians and biologists that have actually studied the question.
> Behe shows that in its arms race with its human opponent
> the malarial parasite has not been able to overcome human sickle cell
> and beta thalasemia resistance to their attacks which would require
> many more than two mutations to overcome even given its tremendous
> reproductive rate and numbers.
>
> Behe also reports that after a particular malarial treatment is
> discontinued in an area (due to anti-biotic resistance) that the
> malarial parasite population reverts back to the "normal" strain.
> Again while this is evidence of natural selection in action it is not
> a demonstration of the coherence and progressivity necessary to
> explain the emergence and deveopment of novel structures, systems and
> organisms.
IOW, evolution is not in the business of producing *progressive*
change, but is in the business of tracking (as a lagging indicator)
the optima to particular changing environments. And, as you point
out, it does so by selecting among *existing* variants rather than
among *non-existent* variants.
>
> > By the same token, natrural selection would
> >work less well if a mutation that was useful in hot environments were
> >more likely to show up in cold environments, and vice-versa.
>
> A mutation may not simply be an improvement with respect to one
> environmental factor. There may be an offseting difficulty with
> respect to other environmental conditions.
'May' does not always mean always. And, in fact, in a non-continuous,
but sporadic environment of antibiotic presence, the difference in
rate of growth of the resistant and non-resistant bacteria in the
absence of antibiotic decreases. This is because the population has
two environments it has to optimize to -- antibiotic-containing and
non-antibiotic containing. Secondary mutations tend to reduce the
detrimental side-effects of the initial antibiotic resistance mutation
as these secondary mutations (not necessarily in the same gene)
accumulate. There is a long history of studying "enhancer" or
"suppressor" mutations.
> Next Natural Selection may
> "choose" a point mutation in the next generation which blocks or
> negates the positive addition in the first. There is no evidence that
> Natural Selection----that is, differential survival conjoined to
> differential reproduction----can coherently and progressively lead to
> novel complex structures, structures, systems and organisms.
So? We already know that evolution is not "progress".
> All of the putative examples of Natural Selection in action, like
> anti-bacterial resistance, involve at most two relevant mutations and
> even these lead nowhere.
Only if you consider 'survival' and adaptation to local conditions as
"nowhere".
> >At third glance, perhaps some sense can be made of your question,
> >though. Natural selection, as scientists understand it, works to
> >adapt organisms to their present, particular environment.
Actually it adapts the current generation to the environment that
their parents faced. It may or may not adapt them to their present,
particular environment. NS is not teleologic or forward-looking. It
is backward looking.
> > Natural
> >selection can't favor a trait that makes it harder to find food, or
> >avoid becoming food, or find a mate, here and now, even if, a few
> >centuries down the road, your descendants living in a different
> >environment would find that trait useful.
>
> First, Steven J treats "Natural Selection" as if it were some
> teleological agent which "works" on behalf of all organisms towards
> some distant fitness "peak." It is nothing like this.
I agree here. NS is definitely not teleological. It adapts organisms
to the environment that their immediate ancestor faced. Of course,
most environments tend to change in a gradual way rather than all-or-
nothing. So most populations can track the changes and accumulate the
new variation that would not have been useful if it had to occur all
at once.
> It is little
> more than a label which captures the effects of "differential
> survival" conjoined to "differential reproduction." Steven J offers
> an over simplified explanation which fails to take into account the
> fact that stochastic events in any local environment often have a
> significant effect on survival and reproductive success.
>
> > Natural selection
> >(differential reproductive success of variant offspring) could
> >therefore be said to be "random" with respect to any particular long-
> >term destination (e.g. at the start of the Triassic, natural selection
> >on basal archosaurs was not aiming at birds, and in a different
> >Triassic traits different traits, perhaps incompatible with evolution
> >into birds, would have survived) one might imagine for a population.
>
> Natural Selection yields adaptation to changing local environments and
> then only with respect to the expression of EXISTING characteristics
> n'ot future ones. As Steven J reports these changes are effectively
> random with respect to any putative progressive change. S. J. Gould
> doubted that a case could be made for natural selection having any
> bias for leading to progressive complexity; he rather saw the
> opposite.
Then we are in complete agreement. NS adapts only to local or
immediate environmental conditions, is not teleological, and only uses
existing variation rather than non-existing variation. Now, how does
this help you?
> How this leads to the conclusion that Natural Selection is non random
> with respect to the emergence of novelty is beyond me and would seem
> to argue against the neoDarwinian mechanism having the sufficient
> causal power to explain biological diversity.
>
> >Natural selection *now* isn't, e.g. favoring traits in racoons on the
> >grounds that, fifty million years from now, those traits will be
> >useful when their descendants evolve abstract intelligence and
> >language.
>
> >If "natural selection" were less of a metaphor -- if it really
> >involved some "thing" that actually examined and selected -- this
> >might not be so. One might conceive of a neo-Lamarckian sort of
> >selection that always kept in mind where a lineage was supposed to be
> >heading over the long term. But currently, no mechanism is known or
> >even imagined that could accomplish this.
>
> But there is an alternative---intelligent design. ID has the causal
> power to explain the origin of complex structures, systems and
> organisms.
Since ID can explain *anything*, I have to agree. But there is no
independent evidence for a designer, no need to posit one, and no hint
of a manufacturing mechanism.
> Darwin dismissed design by using an argument from
> imperfection. Gould used the same argument to dismiss design when
> discussing the Panda's thumb. Both were theological arguments not
> scientific ones. Behe's and Dembski's argument trump Darwin and Gould
> by using accepted to science to introduce ID.
>
> Behe's ID argument is grounded in real world biology and in what is
> biologically reasonable as opposed to atheist theoretical
> possibilities and if-so stories. Dembski's ID argument is well
> grounded in the accepted sciences of Information Theory and
> Probability Theory. So far the atheist world has been impotent
> against Irreducible Complexity and no one has shown any fatal flaws in
> Dembski's theory.
>
> Behe's current argument concerning the limits of the neoDarwinian
> mechanism is even more devasting than IC
Boy, all the biologists must be shaking in their boots. Actually,
they might be. But it would because of wild laughter rather than
fear.
mel turner
news:1186323111.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Or perhaps he is attempting to engage in "language sodomy"?
cheers
mel turner
news:1186286932....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 3:32 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Selection refers to the action, not the actor. My very old dictionary
>> says that 'selection' is "The *act* [my emphasis] of choosing and
>> taking from among a number." No requirement that the *act* be
>> performed by a 'conscious' agent.
> Which means that we are not in the same language universe.
And are you in the same "language universe" as any other person on
this planet?
>In 99% of cases
>the signal sender and signal receiver agree that the intent with
> "selection" was a conscious selection.
Document this rather blatant assertion if you can. Who did the survey?
>You are making a perfectly
> normal word "selection" undefined via your language terrorism.
How ironic that you're misusing so many words yourself, including
"terrorism" in the above. Perhaps one should say you're attempting
to perform "language masturbation"?
>This is just a point of logic.
Or rather, the lack of same.
>Because really the problem is that you have
> decided that there is no God.
Gee, for someone who has such problems interpreting the "intent" of
an author's use of language, you seem to think you have remarkable
mind-reading skills. Seems just a bit contradictory.
Did you notice that nothing about evolution or natural selection
says anything whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of
God? [not to mention that there was no such claim hinted at
anywhere in the preceding discussion]
>The irony is that you have replaced God
> with a nature God by using anthromorphozising terms.
Do you see any irony in your use of "anthropomorphizing" with
regard to "replacing God"?
> One can certainly reason that there is no God, but don't change the
> defined meaning and intent with *selection* in the process.
Please tell us who defined and established the intent of "selection"
thus, and explain why it must apply to all possible uses of the word.
Until you do this, you're "not even wrong". While you're at it, why
not have a crack at "metaphor"?
>As far as
> your dictionary definition is concerned the intent it conveys to me
> with *act* is a conscious act towards a goal.
And so it seems you're simply wrong about that.
But then why should anyone who isn't you much care what it conveys
or doesn't convey to you?
>If you think about it
> the entire atheist argument
What "atheist argument"? Evolution and natural selection are readily
accepted by devout theists of all sorts, or at least all the
better-educated sorts.
>pivots around this single word
> *selection". Dawkins talks about the "Principle of Selection". Nobody
> of course knows what this is.
By "nobody of course knows what this is", you might substitute
"everbody who isn't backspace knows what it is".
>Your entire line of reasoning against God
What "line of reasoning against God"? You might want to look up
"scurrilous falsehood" while you're at it.
>is essentially a semantic one by changeing the meaning of language
> itself.
No, that's more your trick. Or is it more a matter of pretending
not to understand language and its meaning?
> As Dr.Wilkins said "...there is a problem with language itself..."
> Which means that there is a problem with that very sentence itself
> since he made it with his language. And if he thinks there is a
> problem with his language then why should we believe anything he says?
Because what he says makes perfectly good sense, unlike your stuff.
Taking the same tack, why should anyone respond to any of your whining
about not being able to understand the "intent" of writers, since they
can only do this by using words that you can pretend to find
meaningless?
cheers
UC
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
'Random' doesn't enter into it. If humans select the brightest and
loyalest dogs, the fastest or strongest horses, the best milk-
producing, tastiest cattle, etc. these are all instances of
'artificial' selection.
Some animals, in their breeding, fight for females. The biggest and
strongest male elephant seals get to monopolize the females. They
fight any males that attempt to mate with their 'harem'. The offspring
of these unions carry with them the genes of the strongest, most
aggressive males, which helps to keep the race strong and healthy.
There is anothing 'random' or 'non-random' about it. If humans do it,
it's 'selection' or 'artificial selection'. If the weeding out occurs
natutrally, it's called 'natural selection'.
hersheyh
> On Aug 5, 4:11 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Natural selection is none random. If you knew what the word "selection"
> > > > meant, you would not be confused.
> > > > Klaus
> > > Ofcourse "Selection" is non-random. So in other words your intent with
> > > NS is to say that the process is *directed*.
> > > Directed by whom?
> > Directed (or caused) by *what*, not *whom*. The *act* of selection
> > does not, as a matter of semantics, require a *conscious* actor or
> > *conscious* causal agency. Unless, of course, one is engaged in
> > "language terrorism" of the sort you are currently engaged in.
>
> You just don't seem to get my point.
No. I understand it rather well. *You* want the word 'selection' to
mean *only* those *acts* performed by an intelligent conscious agent.
Sorry, but that is NOT what the definition requires.
> I am asking for a word that we
> can agree on to in 95% of all sentences to or implie conscious
> "selection" even and the other 5% it is used like for example a
> "....sieve selecting the small stones....". Obviously the sieve is not
> conscious and using "selection" in this context is acceptable since
> the signal receiver and signal sender both understand the intent
> within the context of the sentence.
It is precisely in this second context that selection is used when it
is modified by the adjective "natural" (as opposed to "artificial",
which *does* mean that the selection is done by a conscious, at least
semi-intelligent agent).
> The trouble comes with biology
> where we everybody is just hammering away with "selections" all over
> the place. The intent or pragmatics is not clear. For some interpret
> this as a "Nature selection force". I am at a loss as to what you are
> tying to convey with
> this 'selection' word the whole time when describing a tiger.
Your inability to distinguish between "natural selection" (selection
caused by environmental factors) and "artificial selection" (selection
caused by a conscious and semi-intelligent agent) is puzzling given
that you *want* a way to distinguish between selection done by an
intelligent agent and selection done by the dumb, unintelligent
environment.
> Jerry
> Coyne's entire rebuttal of Behe's book pivoted on one single word that
> he chanted like an entranced zombie 50 times : Selection.
>
> So what does "selection" mean? It all depends on the intent with the
> word. Before Darwin hijacked it in 1859 "selection" was understood and
> used by everybody with the intent of conscious selection.
Do you have some evidence for this? A dictionary of the time,
perhaps? I would bet that the meaning of selection, meaning an *act*
of selection (without specification that the cause be an intelligent
agent) was in use at Darwin's time too. Again, the dictionary I looked
at was from 1937, so I was hardly using some modern definition of
selection.
> If your
> intent is to say that nature as some sort of pantheistic "selection"
> force "selects" for the outcome then the word "selection" is perfectly
> acceptable.
The word 'selection' is perfectly acceptable for my use. By prefacing
it with the adjective 'natural', I specifically distinguished it from
'artificial selection', which does involve intelligent agency and thus
went beyond merely the word 'selection'.
> But you are saying that this is not your pragmatics or
> intent.
Let me define for you:
Natural selection is selection by 'nature' rather than intelligent
agency. This can either be conservative (preserving current
frequencies) or directional (changing over time).
Artificial selection is selection by 'intelligent agency', but is
still occuring through natural means as opposed to supernatural means
AFAWCT.
In both cases, in order for their to be 'selection', the selecting
factor must make a significant difference in the reproductive success
of one phenotype as opposed to another.
The absence of selection is called 'selective neutrality' and the
consequence of the absence of selection is 'neutral drift'.
> I am asking then why on earth are you using "selection" then?
Because it describes what is going on.
> And the same goes for "reproductive success", nobody can tell me what
> is up with this "success" business.
First you have to understand that the use of the word 'selection',
especially when modified by the word 'natural', is not some bizarre
atheistic plot. It is normal English useage. Like I said, I think
understand what your goal is. It is to *define* selection as
*necessarily* requiring a conscious selector and then claiming that
you have 'logically' demonstrated the existence of an imaginary
selector because you have defined 'selection' to include one. Silly,
I know. But that does seem to be your goal.
Bob Berger
says...
>
>What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
42
stew dean
>. The trouble comes with biology
> where we everybody is just hammering away with "selections" all over
> the place. The intent or pragmatics is not clear. For some interpret
> this as a "Nature selection force". I am at a loss as to what you are
> tying to convey with
> this 'selection' word the whole time when describing a tiger. Jerry
> Coyne's entire rebuttal of Behe's book pivoted on one single word that
> he chanted like an entranced zombie 50 times : Selection.
>
> So what does "selection" mean?
If you have a problem with selection try filtering. Most others don't
have a problem with this word. The intent of the word in natural
selection is described in the theory. The 'selector' is the
environment which filters a population over time turning random
mutations into signal.
Why make this more complicated than it needs to be?
Stew Dean
backspace
> On Aug 4, 3:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> 'Random' doesn't enter into it. If humans select the brightest and
> loyalest dogs, the fastest or strongest horses, the best milk-
> producing, tastiest cattle, etc. these are all instances of
> 'artificial' selection.
You do know that Darwin coined Artificial selection in 1859. The
phrase was not in existence before Darwin messed up the English
language in 1859.
Darwin
"...Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by
artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to
the
beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings,
one
with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may
have
been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of
selection, that is by the survival of the fittest...."
So it all depends on what is your intent with AS and survival of the
fittest. And in what way would you agree disagree that man is
"feeble". Feeble in what aspect? What was Darwin's pragmatics with AS
and what is yours.
UC
> On Aug 5, 10:15 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 3:49 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
>
> > 'Random' doesn't enter into it. If humans select the brightest and
> > loyalest dogs, the fastest or strongest horses, the best milk-
> > producing, tastiest cattle, etc. these are all instances of
> > 'artificial' selection.
>
> You do know that Darwin coined Artificial selection in 1859. The
> phrase was not in existence before Darwin messed up the English
> language in 1859.
Yes, I know that the concept of 'selection' by natural processes was
new with Darwin.
Desertphile
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is the difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
There are no such things as "random natural selection," as there
is no such thing as "random" here in the macro world.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz