Evolutionist: You’re Misrepresenting Natural Selection

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

How could the most complex designs in the universe arise all by themselves? How could biology’s myriad wonders be fueled by random events such as mutations? Read more

Comments

Bruce: It obviously contradicts the premise of the darwinian explanation. Indeed, it is a possible model of design explanation. I agree with the points you make, but still I think we must consider the possibility of a semi gradual design at least in some cases. For example, new proteins could be designed that way, and contribute to new design plans. The general implementation if design in natural history remains, IMO, vastly an object for future research.gpuccio_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

gpuccio:
You are essentially correct, but please consider that engineered modifications can be implemented in a complex organism while retaining the old functionality, and then the new plan can be activated when everything is ready.
This cannot be done in the WWII fighter plane transformation example I gave above (#3), and I contend it cannot be done if one is modifying, say, a bellows lung into an avian lung. You can't have an avian lung waiting in the wings, so to speak, ready to be activated when complete. For one thing, it requires changes to other systems in the organism--circulatory, nervous, etc. For another, it would hardly increase the fitness of the organism for it to have two completely different lungs in its body, one functioning and one under construction. Furthermore, the whole point of Darwinism is that the astronomical odds against the construction of such structures by random mutations are mitigated by building them one small step at a time via random mutations selected by natural selection. To build the entire structure which is then "activated when everything is ready" contradicts the basic premise of the Darwinian explanation.Bruce David_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Chas D: Other than that, I simply disagree that this restriction exists. OK, but that's the whole ID theory. You simply disagree, without considering the arguments. Your choice.gpuccio_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Bruce, You have a good point, and in fact the evidence is that major advances (new orders, classes and phyla) in evolution did NOT occur gradually. I was not actually arguing that evolution WAS due to intelligent selection of random mutations, was just saying that didn't seem absolutely impossible. In any case, my point was that it IS possible to produce something significant (eg, the works of Shakespeare) through randomly generated letters, provided an intelligent selector, for example, Wm Shakespeare, is there to do the selecting. Of course he could write it faster if he typed it himself, but if he has to wait for the monkey to type the letters he wants, he can still produce great works in a reasonable amount of time :-)Granville Sewell_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Even if there is not great difference, for my reasoning, between reproduction and survival, still I must say that IMO you are wrong. Reproduction is the parameter that is relevant for the neo darwinian algorithm, not survival.
I agree to a point; as I stated, in evolutionary terms survival only matters if it leads to enhanced reproductive output for the allele of interest. But you were making the bolder claim that "The “selection” is not a selection, but rather the result of the interaction between reproductive function in the replicators and the constraints on the environment." But the selective interaction is NOT with reproductive function, but with instances of potential reproducers. I don't see what stops that being termed a "selection", by whatever agency is operating on a particular trait, just as my Christmas chocs become enriched in soft centres by my selection of the caramels.
it is only for complex functions that you clearly see the difference. IS can build complex functions. NS cannot.
What stops it? ID boils down to opinions such as the above. My opinion is that NS - more properly, the combination of selection and drift - can build complex functions from raw mutation. I think the typical formulation (articulated by Bruce David below) is perhaps a little restrictive - it is not essential that every step be more fit than its predecessor, but that it not be overly less fit. Other than that, I simply disagree that this restriction exists. Which may have the regulars guffawing into their Christmas punch at the deluded 'darwinist', but ...Chas D_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Bruce: You are essentially correct, but please consider that engineered modifications can be implemented in a complex organism while retaining the old functionality, and then the new plan can be activated when everything is ready. I am not asying that's the way it was done, but that it is possible. For instance, and just to stay simple, one or more new proteins could be implemented using duplicated, non translated genes as origin. Or segments of non coding DNA. That's, indeed, very much part of some darwinian scenarios. The difference with an ID scenario is that, once a gene is dupicated and inactivated, it becomes non visible to NS. So, intelligent causes can very well act on it without any problem, while pure randomness, mutations and drift, will be free to operate in neutral form, but will still have the whole wall of probabilistic barriers against them.gpuccio_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Chas D: Even if there is not great difference, for my reasoning, between reproduction and survival, still I must say that IMO you are wrong. Reproduction is the parameter that is relevant for the neo darwinian algorithm, not survival. Survival without reproduction does not influence in any way the evolution of genomes. It can be true that, in most cases, better survival and better reproduction are connected, but that is not always the case. So, I manintain my point: NS is about differential reproduction. Intelligent and active choice of hairy individuals for breeding is indistinguishable from the tendency of hairier individuals to survive cold, in terms of the effect on the population. That's correct. Indeed, it is only for complex functions that you clearly see the difference. IS can build complex functions. NS cannot. That's, indeed, the main point of ID theory.gpuccio_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

NS is only differential reproduction.
No - NS is also differential survival. And Drift is differential survival/reproduction too, without the causal link to particular alleles that characterises NS.
As darwinists always say, you cannot have NS unless you have replicators.
Some ... darwinists (FFS!) may say that, but the interaction is not with replication. The interaction is between the environment and instances of an entity. That some of these entities go on to replicate is relevant, but it is incorrect to say that "Replicators select themselves”. If there is variation in ability to withstand cold, and it gets colder, the population - breeding and non-breeding, genetically and non-genetically equipped - becomes enriched in cold-survivors, and impoverished in the cold-susceptible. The environment 'selects' these individuals by killing them, and selects the remainder by default. Those that are left can go on to breed, and those whose cold-tolerance was genetic can go on to pass that to offspring. But it is important to note that the selection has culled both non-breeding individuals (infertile, too old, surplus) and breeding individuals. Only the latter are evolutionarily important, hence the significance of the 'replicator' emphasis, but the process is blind to reproductive capacity. For semantic reasons one could insist that selection demands a decision, and hence a decider. To which I would say ... meh. Intelligent and active choice of hairy individuals for breeding is indistinguishable from the tendency of hairier individuals to survive cold, in terms of the effect on the population.Chas D_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

What you are all missing, even you, Dr. Sewell, is that it is not obvious that even with intelligence in the picture a major modification of a complex system is possible one small step at a time if there is a requirement that the system continue to function after each such step. For example, consider a WWII fighter, say the P51 Mustang. Can you imagine any series of incremental changes that would transform it into a jet fighter, say the F80 and have the plane continue to function after each change? To transform a piston engine fighter in to a jet fighter requires multiple simultaneous changes for it to work--an entirely new type of engine, different engine placement, different location of the wings, different cockpit controls and dials, changes to the electrical system, different placement of the fuel tanks, new air intake systems, different materials to withstand the intense heat of the jet exhaust, etc., etc., etc. You can't make these changes in a series of small steps and have a plane that works after each step, no matter how much intelligence is input into the process. Now both a P51 and an F80 are complex devices, but any living organism, from the simplest cell on up to a large multicellular plant or animal, is many orders of magnitude more complex than a fighter plane. If you believe that it is possible to transform a reptile with a bellows lung, solid bones and scales, say, into a bird with a circular flow lung, hollow bones, and feathers by a series of small incremental changes each of which not only results in a functioning organism, but a more "fit" one, then the burden of proof is squrely on your shoulders, because the idea is absurd on the face of it.Bruce David_{December 27, 2011
December
12
Dec
27
27
2011
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Chas D: No. NS is only differential reproduction. The "selection" is not a selection, but rather the result of the interaction between reproductive function in the replicators and the constraints on the environment. But it is the reproductive function in the replicators that, essentially, gives the results that we improperly call "selection". As darwinists always say, you cannot have NS unless you have replicators. So, an objective environment in itself selects nothing. Replicators "select themselves", but they do that in interaction with the existing environment. That's why NS can "select" only one thing: reproductive advamtage. Because it is a byproduct of reproduction, and nothing more.gpuccio_{December 27, 2011
December
12
Dec
27
27
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

The problem is with natural selection there isn't any selecting going on. The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)
Thanks for the honesty Will.Joe_{December 27, 2011
December
12
Dec
27
27
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

The problem with natural selection is it isn’t intelligent; you have to have intelligence hidden somewhere in the process, either an intelligent mutation generator, or an intelligent selector.
Why? Selection is itself, in a sense, 'intelligent', without any connotation of awareness or purpose. It sifts solutions and discards the poorer, thereby conserving the better. Which is what intelligent designers do. But with or without the I-word, it needs nothing 'hidden' beyond what it provides: enrichment of populations in alleles that cause their bearers to produce more offspring than the alternatives. The selective agent can be cold, or drought, or predators or prey &c. These selective agents need no access to microscopic levels, or an 'envisioning' capacity. They just cull, differentially.Chas D_{December 27, 2011
December
12
Dec
27
27
2011
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

When the weed reproduces, the majority of its offshoots will be in about the same location. So the location is heritable.
Wow, just wow. You have no idea what you are talking about. And no your "reasoning" has nothing to do with anything Granville said. But please at least attempt to make your case.Joe_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

It is only natural selection when the differential reproduction is due to heritable random variation.
When the weed reproduces, the majority of its offshoots will be in about the same location. So the location is heritable. Whether or not "natural selection" is the technically correct term does not matter here. The point is that the situation is similar enough that Granville's reasoning should show that the weeds won't take over gardens. But they do.Neil Rickert_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Neil Rickert:
The weeds randomly disperse their seeds. Those that land in fertile soil survive, while the other’s fail to germinate. That’s natural selection at work.
No, it isn't. It is only natural selection when the differential reproduction is due to heritable random variation. I have explained this to you already and even provided the references. That means for you to keep misrepresemnting natural selection you must have some serious isues.Joe_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

The problem with natural selection is it isn’t intelligent; you have to have intelligence hidden somewhere in the process, either an intelligent mutation generator, or an intelligent selector.
The weeds randomly disperse their seeds. Those that land in fertile soil survive, while the other's fail to germinate. That's natural selection at work. According to Granville, the weeds should not take over my garden. Can Granville please explain to the weeds that they are doing it wrong.Neil Rickert_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Granville: I absolutely agree with you. Intelligent selecion is a powerful principle, as shown in bottom up protein engineering. There are two fundamental differences between IS and NS: a) IS can select for any defined function, even if not immediately useful. NS can select only for those functions that give a reproductive advantage in a specific context (that is, an extremely tiny subset of all possible functions). b) IS can select functions even at very low levels. IOWs, IS can recognize a function even in its raw manifestation, and then optimize it. NS requires that the function level be high enough that it can give the reproductive advantage at phenotipic level. Both points are extremely important, and both points are the consequence of the intervention of intelligence and purpose in the process. Moreover, bottom up IS can well be integrated with top down engineering in the design process. All those possibilities are denied to non intelligent processes.gpuccio_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

With monkeys typing random letters, but an intelligent agent selecting them, you COULD generate "me thinks it is a weisel" or even the collected works of Shakespeare in a reasonable amount of time. You wouldn't say it is impossible in this manner to generate something clever though random letters, would you? So for once I think I disagree with you, though I may be misunderstanding you. The problem with natural selection is it isn't intelligent; you have to have intelligence hidden somewhere in the process, either an intelligent mutation generator, or an intelligent selector. But to generate animals and plants, I think you need much more than artificial selection, where an intelligent agent selects based on visible traits; you would need a selector who could see what is going on at the microscopic level and envision where useless mutations might accumulate to become useful.Granville Sewell_{December 26, 2011
December
12
Dec
26
26
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Just great- eliminate the bad designs and then randomly vary the working designs until they too get eliminated. And THAT how is to do it.Joe_{December 25, 2011
December
12
Dec
25
25
2011
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply