Ray Martinez vs. Natural Selection

[Rolf]

Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded subject,
Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:



Take a population of N organisms. Allow them to breed completely at random.
The chance of any individual not being the parent of the next offspring born
is (N-1)/N. The chance of it not being the next parent either is
((N-1)/N)^2. And the next ((N-1)/N)^3 and so on. Once you have N offspring,
any individual from the parent generation has the chance ((N-1)/N)^N of not
being the parent of ANY of those offspring. For populations in double
figures and above, this approaches 36.78%. That means that 36.78% of any
randomly mating population leaves no offspring in the next generation - by
stochastic processes.

The next generation is formed from this second population. Again, you find
that 36.78% leave no offspring. This concentrates successful individuals
from the ancestral population even further. The next generation does the
same. And the next. And the next . Can you see where this is heading? The
statistically inevitable result is that one ancestor (and all its genes)
becomes fixed in the population.

Now, real populations recombine. This means that ancestry is fixed at allele
level, not at individual level. They also don't mate completely at random -
but this actually concentrates some ancestors even more than the 36.78%
baseline. Nonetheless, the argument - the inevitability of fixation from a
blind stochastic sampling process - remains.



I found it at



http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=2160#entry200262



You might want to engage in a debate about that, wouldn't you? It is smack
dab in the middle of your thesis: Natural Selection has as much meaning as
Anal Magnetism. Right?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded subject,
> Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:
>

What is wrong is the starting assumption: that biological production
originates in and from the closed system of material Nature itself
(Naturalism-Materialism).

Ray

> Take a population of N organisms. Allow them to breed completely at random.
> The chance of any individual not being the parent of the next offspring born
> is (N-1)/N. The chance of it not being the next parent either is
> ((N-1)/N)^2. And the next ((N-1)/N)^3 and so on. Once you have N offspring,
> any individual from the parent generation has the chance ((N-1)/N)^N of not
> being the parent of ANY of those offspring. For populations in double
> figures and above, this approaches 36.78%. That means that 36.78% of any
> randomly mating population leaves no offspring in the next generation - by
> stochastic processes.
>
> The next generation is formed from this second population. Again, you find
> that 36.78% leave no offspring. This concentrates successful individuals
> from the ancestral population even further. The next generation does the
> same. And the next. And the next . Can you see where this is heading? The
> statistically inevitable result is that one ancestor (and all its genes)
> becomes fixed in the population.
>
> Now, real populations recombine. This means that ancestry is fixed at allele
> level, not at individual level. They also don't mate completely at random -
> but this actually concentrates some ancestors even more than the 36.78%
> baseline. Nonetheless, the argument - the inevitability of fixation from a
> blind stochastic sampling process - remains.
>
> I found it at
>

> http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f...

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded
>> subject, Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:
>>
>
> What is wrong is the starting assumption: that biological production
> originates in and from the closed system of material Nature itself
> (Naturalism-Materialism).

Natural selection does not make such a "starting assumption". Natural
selection isn't about "biological production" per se, but about why certain
phenotypes are successful, and others are not. Natural selection is the
idea that environmental factors is what causes that differential
reproductive success. It says nothing about whether there is anything
beyond nature that affects biology.

Of course, if you can produce any evidence that "biological production"
orginates from outside of natural processes, you are more than welcome to
present that evidence. The question becomes, why haven't you?



>
> Ray

so, why did you ignore all the points below which show how natural selection
works?

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Jan 30, 2:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> >> Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded
> >> subject, Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:
>
> > What is wrong is the starting assumption: that biological production
> > originates in and from the closed system of material Nature itself
> > (Naturalism-Materialism).
>
> Natural selection does not make such a "starting assumption".

Jaw-dropping ignorance or deliberate truth suppression.

> Natural
> selection isn't about "biological production" per se, but about why certain
> phenotypes are successful, and others are not.

The full claim says natural selection is the main, but not the
exclusive, cause of biological production. In modern terms said end
result production is known as "cumulative selection."

> Natural selection is the
> idea that environmental factors is what causes that differential
> reproductive success.   It says nothing about whether there is anything
> beyond nature that affects biology.
>

Apparently you have lost track of what a starting assumption is or are
engaged in truth suppression.

> Of course, if you can produce any evidence that "biological production"
> orginates from outside of natural processes, you are more than welcome to
> present that evidence.    The question becomes, why haven't you?
>

I was right: you did lose track; now you remember (and were engaged in
truth suppression): "....orginates from outside of natural
processes" (DT) = the starting assumption of NATURAL selection:
biological production does not "orginate from outside of NATURAL
processes" (DT).

>
>
> > Ray
>
> so, why did you ignore all the points below which show how natural selection
> works?
>

Except for the starting assumptions and logic, I know it works: it has
to work since there is no other option (like invisible Creator). Once
it is accepted and postulated that biological production originates in
and from material Nature itself, the explanation itself and the
mechanics are irrelevant. You Evolutionists can argue among yourselves
concerning these issues. As far as we are concerned it doesn't matter
if Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Harshman, Hershey or Wilkins is correct; it's
all Materialism any way you slice it. (Note: I intentionally excluded
Darwin and don't want to explain why, here.)

Ray

[....]

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/30/12 2:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "Rolf"<rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded subject,
>> Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:
>>
>
> What is wrong is the starting assumption: that biological production
> originates in and from the closed system of material Nature itself
> (Naturalism-Materialism).

Then why are you making that assumption?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>>>> Ray, here is something I think have a bearing on that dreaded
>>>> subject, Natural Selection Please tell us what is wrong with it:
>>
>>> What is wrong is the starting assumption: that biological production
>>> originates in and from the closed system of material Nature itself
>>> (Naturalism-Materialism).
>>
>> Natural selection does not make such a "starting assumption".
>
> Jaw-dropping ignorance or deliberate truth suppression.

Well, the ignorance is entirely yours. There's no "truth suppression"
involved. Natural selection does not assume that nothing beyond nature
exists.

>
>> Natural
>> selection isn't about "biological production" per se, but about why
>> certain phenotypes are successful, and others are not.
>
> The full claim says natural selection is the main, but not the
> exclusive, cause of biological production.

What "full claim"? Natural selection produces adaptive change in
populations. It is not a "cause of biological production". Biological
production is caused by reproduction of already existing organisms.

> In modern terms said end
> result production is known as "cumulative selection."

"is known" by whom? Here's an explanation of "cumulative selection".

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html

What does that have to do with your mistaken belief that natural selection
is the same as "biological production"?

>
>> Natural selection is the
>> idea that environmental factors is what causes that differential
>> reproductive success. It says nothing about whether there is anything
>> beyond nature that affects biology.
>>
>
> Apparently you have lost track of what a starting assumption is or are
> engaged in truth suppression.

Since the "starting assumptions" are you own mistaken belief, they aren't
really relevant. Again, natural selection itself does not assume that
nothing beyond the natural exists. It is simply the idea that environmental
factors are what determines which variations in a population survive to
reproduce.

Again, you may present any evidence you wish to establish your claim that
"biological production" comes from anything beyond the natural.

>
>> Of course, if you can produce any evidence that "biological
>> production" orginates from outside of natural processes, you are
>> more than welcome to present that evidence. The question becomes,
>> why haven't you?
>>
>
> I was right: you did lose track; now you remember (and were engaged in
> truth suppression):

Ray, you seem confused here. I did not "lose track" of anything, and I'm
not "suppressing" any "truth".

> "....orginates from outside of natural
> processes" (DT) = the starting assumption of NATURAL selection:
> biological production does not "orginate from outside of NATURAL
> processes" (DT).

You *are* confused. I just pointed out that natural selection does not make
such an assumption. All you've offered in rebuttal is a petulant "does
too". Science can't say if anything beyond the natural exists or does
not exist, so natural selection can't possibly start with that assumption.

Natural selection, as the name implies, is about how variations in a
population are "selected" by natural conditions, i.e. the environment.
It says nothing about how biology was first produced, or how beings
reproduce. It only is concerned with how particular adaptive changes become
fixed within those populations.

Your entire argument is that "biological production" comes from beyond
nature. That is not what is observed in nature, where all biology comes
from earlier biology, without need for something beyond nature. If you
believe that "biological production" comes from beyond nature, it's up to
you to show evidence.

why haven't you?

>
>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> so, why did you ignore all the points below which show how natural
>> selection works?
>>
>
> Except for the starting assumptions and logic, I know it works: it has
> to work since there is no other option (like invisible Creator).

There are other "options" that you seem to ignore, or are unaware of.
Evolution is not the only possible way life could have diversified without a
"invisible creator. BYW, you still haven't answered why a creator has to be
invisible.

> Once
> it is accepted and postulated that biological production originates in
> and from material Nature itself, the explanation itself and the
> mechanics are irrelevant.

Actually, that's what science is all about; selecting the answer that best
matches the evidence. All the evidence so far available shows that
"biological production" does come from within nature, but it can't rule out
a belief that there is something beyond. If you want to have others accept
your claim, you need to show some evidence that supports your position. If
you could offer testable evidence that shows "biological production" from
outside nature, science would have no choice than to accept your
assertions.

Why haven't you?

> You Evolutionists can argue among yourselves
> concerning these issues.

Thanks, but no one needs your permission to engage in science. Note that
all scientific progress in the last 300 years has come from scientists
arguing among themselves over these kind of issues. Non scientific
creationism has not added a single thing to human knowledge in that time
period.

> As far as we are concerned it doesn't matter
> if Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Harshman, Hershey or Wilkins is correct; it's
> all Materialism any way you slice it.

That is where you are mistaken. It's not materialism. It's science, which
makes use of methodological naturalism as a tool. You may ignore science,
if that's what you wish, but you aren't going to convince anyone that your
assumptions and wishful thinking offers any intellectual worth.

> (Note: I intentionally excluded
> Darwin and don't want to explain why, here.)

Who cares, Ray? You are just wrong, and are too pridefull to admit your
errors. You can ignore the evidence for evolution all you like, but it
doesn't go away. Western soceity isn't going to abandon science, and the
scientific method simply because it offends your religious beliefs.


DJT

[Harry K]

On Jan 30, 2:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think he is wating to read his own book to find the answers to those
tough questions.

Harry K

[backspace]

On Jan 30, 9:51 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> The next generation is formed from this second population. Again, you find
> that 36.78% leave no offspring. This concentrates successful individuals
> from the ancestral population even further.

Other than noting they were concentrated how was their successfulness
measured ?
successful <=> concentrates, dissimilar terms referring to the same
fact.

> The next generation does the
> same. And the next. And the next . Can you see where this is heading? The
> statistically inevitable result is that one ancestor (and all its genes)
> becomes fixed in the population.

''... inevitable result .....'' when you claims are formulated such
as in the words of Darwin 'the truth of the propositions cannot be
disputed' then yes, they are inevitable, unfalsifiable and like what
happens, happens untestable.

[backspace]

It isn't an outright tautology but a Truthiness-Tautology, blending of
truism and tautology. The terms 'successful' , 'favorable' isn't
supposed to be used in scientific descriptions. They are used in the
context of the competitionsist mythology between atoms by Democritus.


=== Selfish gene ===
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/04/17/the_rise_of_the_new_spontaneous_generati

"Before the coming of life on earth, some rudimentary evolution of
molecules could have occurred by ordinary processes of physics and
chemistry. There is no need to think of design or purpose or
directedness. If a group of atoms in the presence of energy falls into
a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way. The earliest form of
natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a
rejection of unstable ones. There is no mystery about this. It had to
happen by definition" (Ref 9, p.13)

:"....selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones...."
which is the same thing Empedocles wrote.

This explanation is based on the misconception that I have already
mentioned, that living creatures evolve to do things 'for the good of
the species' or 'for the good of the group'. It is easy to see how
this idea got its start in biology. Much of an animal's life is
devoted to reproduction, and most of the acts of altruistic self-
sacrifice that are observed in nature
are performed by parents towards their young. 'Perpetuation of the
species' is a common euphemism for reproduction, and it is undeniably
a ....................

p.14 This line of thought can be put into vaguely Darwinian terms.
Evolution works by natural selection, and natural selection means the
differential survival of the 'fittest'. But are we talking about the
fittest individuals, the fittest races, the fittest species, or what.'
For some purposes this does
not greatly matter, but when we are talking about altruism it is
obviously crucial. If it is species that are competing in what Darwin
called the struggle for existence, the individual seems best regarded
as a pawn in the game, to be sacrificed when the greater interest of
the species as a whole requires it.

To put it in a slightly more respectable way, a group, such as a
species or a population within a species, whose individual members are
prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the group, maybe
less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose individual members
place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world becomes
populated mainly by groups consisting of self-sacrificing individuals.
This is the theory of 'group selection', long assumed to be true by
biologists not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory,
brought out into the open in a famous book by V. C. Wynne-Edwards, and
popularized by Robert Ardrey in The Social Contract. The orthodox
alternative is normally called 'individual selection', although I
personally prefer to speak of gene selection.


p.17 In the beginning was simplicity. It is difficult enough
explaining how even a simple universe began. I take it as agreed that
it would be even harder to explain the sudden springing up, fully
armed, of complex order-life, or a being capable of creating life.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is satisfying
because it shows us a way in which simplicity could change into
complexity, how unordered atoms could group themselves into ever more
complex patterns until they ended up manufacturing people.

Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to
the deep problem of our existence. I will try to explain the great
theory in a more general way than is customary, beginning with the
time before evolution itself began. Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'
is really a special case of a more

[backspace]

On Jan 31, 12:08 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Natural selection, as the name implies, is about how variations in a
> population are "selected" by natural conditions, i.e. the environment.

In the pattern with a purpose or pattern without a purpose sense?
See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautological_Oxymorons

[Rolf]

But isn't what we are talking about here more related to the world of
copulation? That is, each generation engaging in copulation to produce (or
'design' in your dictionary) the nexte generation? To us, that is not an
assumption. It is a fact, most of us are the product of that process and
most of us also have done our share of contributing to the next step.

Are you denying that within the reproductive cycle a lot of activity wrt the
genome also takes place?

> Ray
>
> [....]

[Rolf]

He and we are in for a real long wait. But so what, the Earth is only 4.6
billion years old yet.


> Harry K

[Dana Tweedy]

I don't see how either applies.

DJT

[Rolf]

An example of natural selection in action:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201120732.htm