It is sufficient that NS does not act too strongly against, not that it must act for, a particular change.
Comment on crossposted thread, Blindwatchbreaker
Allan is wrong in using the word “sufficient”. The correct statement “It is necessary but not sufficient for NS not to act too strongly”
Notwithstanding Allan Miller’s wrong choice of words, he rightly echoes the words of three scientists I’ve quoted before. For evolution of complexity to happen, Natural Selection must often be inhibited, Natural Selection is not the mechanism of innovation it is the INHIBITOR.
many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection
opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture
a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance
Mae Wan Ho
The internal contradiction in its [natural selections’] major theoretical cornerstone — Fisher’s fundamental theorem
traits having been subjected to heavy selection pressures, because of their importance in the lives of the organisms, should be less variable than less important traits….
traits that have been most important in the lives of organisms up to this moment will be least likely to be able to evolve further!
Critique of Natural Selection
Allan isn’t the only one chiming in on the necessity of NS not being too strong. Patrick argued for neutral drift and so did Elizabeth. Why? Consider this quote:
We know that neutral mutations can and do propagate through a population, and that even deleterious mutations can do the same. And for every additional organism with a neutral or deleterious mutation there is an additional opportunity for a subsequent mutation to come along and render it positive.
So one has to hope for blind luck that selection occasionally fails for an immediately deleterious mutation that might be beneficial in the future because natural selection is myopic, it does not have foresight to see that what is deleterious in the present might be beneficial in the future when combined with not-yet-existing future changes. 😯
The irony is, in these cases, luck works better on average than selection! What did I say about the blind watchbreaker disposing of lunches even if they were free?
So now, Allan and friends have to hope Natural Selection actually doesn’t work too well for evolution to happen. They hope mutations are neutral or only slightly deleterious. They appeal to blind luck allowing a deleterious mutation to propagate through the population, and this is most definitely an anti-Darwinian scenario.