Priceless comment moment of the day: The magical power of Darwinian natural selection

Andre, just a heads up about the paper you linked to in comment #40, it was subsequently refuted by Chen and Zhang 2013 in molecular biology and evolution. Radioaction

AVS: If you read closely I said that the small changes over the course of evolution do not have definite direction. If you read closely you said the changes were unguided. Here, let me quote you. Read closely now:

There is constant changes in offspring due to unguided changes.

The constant changes are due to unguided changes. Brilliant. Or not. Mung

'1. The male who breeds may be the one who stayed out of the fight (too small), and was just standing around with the females, looking on. (Hey, girls, I have a GREAT idea! Let’s go for a stroll … )' Hilarious ! What a good thing females' tastes can be unpredictable, too. Axel

Yes, Petrushka, there is design. Not "appearance of design", not a mirage - but design. Is the design emergent from natural teleology or supernatural theology? That's open to debate. That debate will become much more philosophically interesting and scientifically productive once the "design deniers" are dealt with sigh. ppolish

Randomly walking through possibilities a major design rule for finding the way. Random walking is emergent from an underlying design.

So it appears that what you are saying is that evolution -- the phenomenon described by mainstream biology -- is designed. Petrushka

Trying all possibilities does not matter to the evolutionary outcome? I disagree, trying possibilities is a key design rule. Randomly walking through possibilities a major design rule for finding the way. Random walking is emergent from an underlying design. ppolish

I suppose one could say the same ting about all natural stochastic processes, including radioactive decay. Please note that mutation is not defined as mathematically random. It is defined as having no observable correlation with function or adaptive need. In a population of bacteria, as in Lenski's experiment, basically all genomic points mutate. You can test this, because Lenski kept samples of generations. Whether the distribution would pass a test of randomness is irrelevant. If you try all the possibilities, it doesn't matter to the evolutionary outcome. Petrushka

A Random Number Generator (RNG) is carefully designed and follows thought out rules. Same thing with a Random Mutation Generator. A random number or random mutation is the result of a design. Guided and purposeful design. Awesome Design sometimes. ppolish

If anyone is interested in what Zachriel has to say as a follow-up, let me know and I'll be glad to continue. Otherwise, I've learned enough about his viewpoint on this to leave it at that. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: In the very same quoted text, you first give yourself freedom to interpret it and then later close it off and declare, definitively what the word means. No, we answered it both ways. Depends on what you mean by design. If by design you mean complex integrated structure, then there are certainly complex integrated structures. However, if you mean an external agent who conceived and implemented the structures, then no, there is no such evidence. Silver Asiatic: In this case, you’d be tempted to re-define what “awe” means, or point out that nature really isn’t awesome. In its most basic meaning, awe is a sense of wonder. Yes, we are using the term in its usual sense, that is, full of wonder. Silver Asiatic: A sense of wonder or awe are contractions to the view of evolutionary science, Awe is an emotional response, so it does not constitute a scientific claim. Silver Asiatic: or scientism in general. Evolutionary science is not a subset of scientism. Even people who think science explains everything can and do experience awe. Zachriel

Zac

Note the modifier “design”, which changes the meaning ...

Zac

Depends on what you mean by design.

I understand. In the very same quoted text, you first give yourself freedom to interpret it and then later close it off and declare, definitively what the word means.

Huh? Hundreds of millions of years of evolution? Entire ecosystems coming and going? Tyrannosaurus Rex and Archaeopteryx? How is that not awesome by any reasonable measure? http://www.commoncorescience.n.....myTRex.jpg

This is probably the most significant thing I've ever seen you post -- from perhaps hundreds of posts I've read from you. If you were willing to explore your view on this I think it would be interesting and valuable. The only danger I'd see is that you'd either shut down the discussion or do one of your flip-flops as above. In this case, you'd be tempted to re-define what "awe" means, or point out that nature really isn't awesome. In its most basic meaning, awe is a sense of wonder. Then take a look at more complete defintions. A sense of wonder or awe are contractions to the view of evolutionary science, or scientism in general. Silver Asiatic

ppolish: Now can we agree that “random” mutations are actually the result of awesomely complex design rules? Silver Asiatic (quoting): “awesomely complex design rules” Note the modifier "design", which changes the meaning — especially in light of the original statement, which concerned mutations. Zachriel

AVS:

And you can believe in “awesomely complex design rules” all you want, enjoy life in your fairytale world.

Zac:

Huh?

Thanks! Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: The evolutionary view appears to be this. Silver Asiatic: 1. It is not awesome Huh? Hundreds of millions of years of evolution? Entire ecosystems coming and going? Tyrannosaurus Rex and Archaeopteryx? How is that not awesome by any reasonable measure? http://www.commoncorescience.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/JeremyTRex.jpg Silver Asiatic: 2. It is not complex That's as off-base as your first point. There's no one in biology who doesn't think organisms are not complex. Indeed, we're talking about biologists! They're the ones who study the complexity that makes up an organism. Silver Asiatic: 3. There is no design Depends on what you mean by design. There is certainly complex integrated structure. However, there is no evidence of an external agent was involved in determining these structures. Silver Asiatic: 4. There are no rules Have no idea what that even means. The Theory of Evolution involves quite a few interconnecting claims, including common descent. Zachriel

AVS

And you can believe in “awesomely complex design rules” all you want, enjoy life in your fairytale world.

Ppolish observes awesomely complex design rules in nature - as I do. The evolutionary view appears to be this. 1. It is not awesome 2. It is not complex 3. There is no design 4. There are no rules Anyone seeing things otherwise is believing in a fairytale. Silver Asiatic

ppolish: Now can we agree that “random” mutations are actually the result of awesomely complex design rules? Experiments have shown that at least some mutations are random with respect to fitness. This includes breeding experience where mutations are known to be happenstance. Andre: Of course not and those heroes that give their lives to save others falsify Natural selection in an instant. No. Self-sacrifice is explained as an outgrowth of kin-selection. Andre: Am I the best adapted? Am I the fittest? Humans have been extraordinarily successful over the last few millennia. As you should know from your elementary studies in biology, populations tend to be diverse. Fittest is a relative term not an absolute. Zachriel

Andre I'm glad we agree that Alfred Wallace was right! What he is actually saying though is easy to oversimplify as describing a "supernatural" type entity beyond science to search for, when he made it clear at the end that they are talking about all that is left to scientifically discover that pertains to how intelligence works in cells and what makes their protoplasm, which is from the behavior/agency of matter. Associated with intelligence is consciousness, which is theory in itself that's in my opinion even harder to make progress in (than theory specifically premised for intelligence). What Charles Darwin was describing is in a way child simple thinking where it's common sense that where all the passenger pigeons in North America are selected out of the environment to adorn hats they go extinct, while the ones we now have get all the city park food even through winter while others less adapted for city life starve out in the wild. They are better adapted, by not making good hats. Alfred saw Darwinian theory as just a stepping stone to put behind us along the way, to the best yet to come. We then know more about how "intelligence" works at the level of the cell and protoplasm. From my perspective that took vision, which is being denied by misinformation that makes it seem that his last book was the result of turning to religion after going senile, not worth taking seriously. I right away knew what Alfred was describing. And yes it very much is Theory of Intelligent Design, but there is no sitting still in awe and wonder it's real theory that's supposed to surprise us. From my perspective he foresaw us being right here, right now, with the next great theory of science to surprise us in ways he could not image either. I'm doing what Alfred would do. What I have for theory is the result. Something very scientifically useful was certainly there, after all. Gary S. Gaulin

Some Wallace quotes dear to me.

To say that mind is a product or function of protoplasm, or of its molecular changes, is to use words to which we can attach no clear conception. You cannot have, in the whole, what does not exist in any of the parts; and those who argue thus should put forth a definite conception of matter, with clearly enunciated properties, and show, that the necessary result of a certain complex arrangement of the elements or atoms of that matter, will be the production of self-consciousness. There is no escape from this dilemma--either all matter is conscious, or consciousness is something distinct from matter, and in the latter case, its presence in material forms is a proof of the existence of conscious beings, outside of, and independent of, what we term matter. The foregoing considerations lead us to the very important conclusion, that matter is essentially force, and nothing but force; that matter, as popularly understood, does not exist, and is, in fact, philosophically inconceivable. When we touch matter, we only really experience sensations of resistance, implying repulsive force; and no other sense can give us such apparently solid proofs of the reality of matter, as touch does. This conclusion, if kept constantly present in the mind, will be found to have a most important bearing on almost every high scientific and philosophical problem, and especially on such as relate to our own conscious existence."

There is, I conceive, no contradiction in believing that mind is at once the cause of matter and of the development of individualised human minds through the agency of matter.

We have also here an acting cause to account for that balance so often observed in nature,--a deficiency in one set of organs always being compensated by an increased development of some others--powerful wings accompanying weak feet, or great velocity making up for the absence of defensive weapons; for it has been shown that all varieties in which an unbalanced deficiency occurred could not long continue their existence. The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident; and in like manner no unbalanced deficiency in the animal kingdom can ever reach any conspicuous magnitude, because it would make itself felt at the very first step, by rendering existence difficult and extinction almost sure soon to follow."

Andre

Gary Agreed. Wallace was right. Darwin got it wrong. Andre

Alfred Wallace's brilliant "intelligence" science gets going real good in the ending chapter. It's worth very careful study: https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala ID perspective: http://www.alfredwallace.org/about.php Gary S. Gaulin

You are seeing things in the article there not there. Variable rate does not imply foresight. Mutations are still random with respect to fitness. Petrushka

AVS I am sorry but this comment is just dumb!

Does your designer realize how often their mutation “design rules” lead to debilitating diseases?

I'm going to try and help you, God knows its futile but try I will...... The more complex a system is the more likely it will fail So how do you reduce failures? You build as much redundancy as you possibly can. But redundancy also has a cost, because of the increase of even more complexity to the system the additional maintenance of the system could lead to more failures. You can make a poster and stick it on your wall. Complex systems either work or they don't there is no middle ground here, and to make them work as good as possible you have to use some trade offs. Inevitably anything with parts will eventually fail and breakdown no matter what. "When that which is perfect has come then that which is in part shall be done away" Andre

Natural selection is nonsense! Here is the definition of NS;

A process resulting in the survival of those individuals from a population of animals or plants that are best adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions. The survivors tend to produce more offspring than those less well adapted, so that the characteristics of the population change over time, thus accounting for the process of evolution

So question for the faithful..... do you consider yourself best adapted? Are you the fittest? Of course not and those heroes that give their lives to save others falsify Natural selection in an instant. Are mutations Random? Wallace was right they are not! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522932 So natural selection Darwin's idea after observing pigeon breeding is not the be all and end all matter of fact its nothing....... People that try and give this false creator some airtime are not doing it for any other reason but in the hope it may be true, although they know its not because they just have to look at themselves and ask? Am I the best adapted? Am I the fittest? Bet you they are not! And yet here you are! Andre

Where did I say that natural selection is guided? And you can believe in "awesomely complex design rules" all you want, enjoy life in your fairytale world. Does your designer realize how often their mutation "design rules" lead to debilitating diseases? So I take it you accept evolution and have just realigned your beliefs so as to better suit your need for a designer? AVS

AVS, I'm sincerely happy to agree with you that natural selection is guided. Now can we agree that "random" mutations are actually the result of awesomely complex design rules? ppolish

I'm sorry Mungy, are you trying to say that god makes changes to the genome and gene expression? If you read closely I said that the small changes over the course of evolution do not have definite direction. Natural selection keeps a fraction of these changes, "encouraging" adaptation to the environment. In adapting to the environment, the process of evolution exhibits direction and guides organisms. AVS

Selection is a label for a result. Most change does not affect reproductive success. Petrushka

AVS: There is constant changes in offspring due to unguided changes. Can you describe some of these changes and how it was determined they were unguided? According to you they led to adaptations but not in any way that would indicate "direction." If adaptation doesn't indicate "direction," what would? Mung

I don't think so Boxy. There is constant changes in offspring due to unguided changes. Evolution is the encouragement of adaptations that benefit a species in its environment. The "unguided" part is that there was no definite direction in the small changes that led to the adaptations we now observe. AVS

AVS: You guys love that phrase “unguided evolution.”

You are right, we love it.

AVS: It is mutation that is unguided.

Yes, and it produces all the countless mind-blowing inventions we see in life. Amazing isn't it?

AVS: Natural selection guides organisms to become more adapted to their environment.

Nope, the adapted organisms are produced by “unguided processes” and offered to natural selection (the grim reaper) to leave alone - to keep away from / to 'not kill'. Box

You guys love that phrase "unguided evolution." It is mutation that is unguided. Natural selection guides organisms to become more adapted to their environment. The phrase "unguided evolution" is a product of the evolution-deniers. At some level there has to be guidance, why else would species be so well adapted to their environment. Oh, that's right, because god did it! Who needs science! AVS

Amazing all these countless mind-blowing inventions despite natural selection. It's like a gunman opening fire in the workshop of a blind watchmaker. Nothing in life makes sense except in the light of evolution. Box

Huh? I don't follow. Most change is simply change? All change in evolution is due to changes in the genome and its expression. Unless I am mistaken. AVS

" natural selection is environmental “encouragement” " Careful there AVS, we're talking about unguided evolution here. Maybe you mean an appearance of encouragement? ppolish

Mutations provide the innovation, natural selection is environmental “encouragement” of the innovation and is the driving force behind adaptation. No?

Partly true. Most change is simply change. Petrushka

Mutations provide the innovation, natural selection is environmental "encouragement" of the innovation and is the driong force behind adaptation. No? AVS

Look at extinction to get a grasp of innovation destroyed by natural selection. Mountains of evidence. Lovely chirping Hawaiian crickets that have lost their singing legs to parasitic flies is one example. Look at the long list of endangered plants/animals to see innovation on the verge of being snuffed out. Natural selection destroys innovation and preserves innovation - but it most certainly does not create innovation. ppolish

Destroyed by Selection is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the fit. There are single genes in the human population that have. Thousands of alleles. All are fit. I would appreciate an example of an innovation destroyed by natural selection. Petrushka

ppolish: natural selection is not a creative force. It does not innovate, but merely selects what is already there. A sculptor doesn't add, just subtracts. http://www.artble.com/imgs/1/7/2/724042/david.jpg ppolish: Seems crystal clear – natural selection is not creative. Actually it's evolution that is creative, meaning both a source of novelty and selection. Zachriel

Petrushka, were did I say "evolution doesn't work" whatever that means. What I'm saying is that Wager's "Arrival of the Fittest" is BASED on the premise that natural selection and "Survival of the Fittest" can not explain innovation and creativity. ppolish

Indeed ppolish, not only is natural selection 'not a creative force' it is a formidable destructive force. Box

Exactly Box. Natural Selection has eliminated far more innovations than it has preserved. ppolish

So "we know few." Do you want to bet on whether the author is going to suggest some that are mot widely known, or do you want to bet that he throws in the towel and says evolution doesn't work? I suspect you are of the opinion that spaghetti code and convoluted, redundant solutions are the hallmark of a designer. I don't think you can have it both ways. The word "designer" presents an analogy with human designers. But human designers do not value spaghetti code or systems that cannot be analyzed. They do not appreciate programmers that change the syntax depending on the level of object. When you see computer code that is convoluted, you do not jump to the conclusion that the programmer is wise and hyper-intelligent. Rather the opposite. You are most likely to conclude that the code was assembled piecemeal by someone who had no overall design in mind, but put things together by trial and error. All of which is largely irrelevant, because when we run long term experiments like Lenski's we can see that mutations are random with respect to selection. Everything is tried, and a few things work. What is surprising is how many variations are good enough to survive. Petrushka

Petrushka, you misunderstood the sentence you highlighted in your quote mine. Read the sentence before - especially the "we know few". Wagner is making the point that natural selection is not creative. Read his book, it is his imaginary humongous multidimensional library that leads to innovation - not natural selection. ppolish

Natural selection is the grim reaper killing off the vast majority of the utterly mind-blowing inventions by pure randomness. Box

I'm no longer curious because you answered the "where" question. I now know where. My follow-up question is why. You have quote-mined a writer. Quote mines are instantly detectable, because they appear to say the opposite of an author's general line of argument. You have ignored the part about the "combination of natural selection and random genetic change." I have trouble imagining why you wish to pursue this. It doesn't call evolution into doubt. Petrushka

Petruska, you asked "I’m curious where you get the idea that selection has no creative power." And I amswered - Darwin & Wagner. Others too, but I'll assume you are no longer curious:) ppolish

Which partner is the creative force in making a baby? I can see you are laboring mightily to prove that Darwin was wrong, or something, but mutation plus selection together produce change in populations. If there is anything new in what's being written, it's the fact that sequences are much more robust than previously imagined. Which is another way of saying there are innumerable ways to get from sequence A to sequence B. And you can get profound changes over time through drift. Now really, how does that damage evolution or common descent? Petrushka

Page 14 "Arrival of the Fittest": "This is not a small problem, because natural selection is not a creative force. It does not innovate, but merely selects what is already there. Darwin realized that natural selection allows innovation to spread, but he did not know where they came from in the first place" Matter of semantics? Seems crystal clear - natural selection is not creative. ppolish

…we know few of the principles that explain the ability of living things to innovate through a combination of natural selection and random genetic change. Random change by itself is not sufficient, because it does not necessarily bring forth beneficial phenotypes. For example, random change might not be suitable to improve most man-made, technological systems. Similarly, natural selection alone is not sufficient: As the geneticist Hugo de Vries already noted in 1905, ‘natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest’. Any principle of innovation needs to explain how novel, beneficial phenotypes can originate. In other words, principles of innovation are principles of phenotypic variability. — Andreas Wagner, “The molecular origins of evolutionary innovations,” Trends in Genetics 27 (2011):397-410

Petrushka

Oh brother, the get along gang still adamant that nothing can do anything. NS is a misnomer to start with, nothing can't select jack......... but hey as long as we can imagine the power of this invisible force, much like Jedi mind tricks we don't really have to search for true, ignorance is bliss.... Andre

“Arrival of the Fittest contains brand-new scientific insights told in sparkling literary prose. It is a landmark book that combines original, perhaps revolutionary ideas elegantly explained. In particular, the concept of genotype networks—that there are thousands of ways to alter a metabolic pathway without stopping it from working—promises to solve the enduring puzzle of how natural selection can be such a force for innovation.” —MATT RIDLEY, author of The Red Queen

Petrushka

I think you are making the same mistake being made on another thread. Mutation provides the raw material for innovation. Selection is the differential success of new sequences. The somewhat unexpected discovery about 50 years ago of neutral drift simply means that there are lots of stepping stones in the sea of function. Function is not isolated islands at all. Saying natural selection is not creative is semantics. It does not change anything important about the rate of biological change or about common descent. Petrushka

Petrushka, like Box said - Wagner dropped NS as creative power like a hot potato. He has a book out called "Arrival of the Fittest". First chapter makes it clear, then he goes on an imaginary voyage. ppolish

I'm curious where you get the idea that selection has no creative power. Petrushka

It is amusing to see that atheists, at the moment they believe that there is some alternative, suddenly do understand that natural selection has no creative power. Guys like Moran ("neutral mutations") and Wagner ("complex networks"), who hold that their hocus-pocus explains stuff, suddenly drop natural selection as a creative force like a hot potato. Box

I can’t say I was taught “’survival of the fittest’ means ‘survival of the best.’” I wonder where DeNews gets this? A rich and febrile imagination poorly filtered by a client audience that is not very concerned about factual accuracy. Learned Hand

I love this:

The Darwin scam has always depended on classroom teachers reinforcing the idea that “survival of the fittest” means “survival of the best” – in order to inculcate the idea that such survival increases genetic information.

I can't say I was taught “'survival of the fittest' means 'survival of the best.'” I wonder where DeNews gets this? Neither do I remember ever being inculcated on the idea that "survival increases genetic information." This idea belongs to ID Creationism. Own it. Finally, let's note the words of the OP: "scam," "inculcate," "huffs," and so on. The OP is typically nasty for UD. Nevertheless, it's always impressive, the meanness and righteous disdain of ID's proponents--even as they delight in telling us how "broken" they are! LarTanner

News

3. Old? Well, if “old” doesn’t link up with 1) or 2) , what does it mean? It isn’t clear that all life forms even age, the way humans do. Many seem to just live until something kills them, and produce whatever offspring they do, sometimes at a century old.

If the old are selected against, then everything should be young. Don't worry, a new evolutionary explanation will tell us that the old are selected for their benefit to the entire population, at least temporarily until they die.

The Darwin scam has always depended on classroom teachers reinforcing the idea that “survival of the fittest” means “survival of the best” – in order to inculcate the idea that such survival increases genetic information.

The Darwin scam does depend on that - there's no other way to promote the idea of bacteria-to-humans without that kind of gradient scale in 'improvement'.

Of course that isn’t true. The genes of those who happen not to have been killed by the ambient conditions before they produce fertile offspring survive. And pass on whatever they pass on. The question of how all that information got embedded in these life forms is still open. But the Darwin scam has sure cost a lot of time and careers.

Exactly. And more than time and careers, it has damaged human society and intellectual culture. Silver Asiatic

And Darwinism can answer everything it is just like goddidit!!!! Andre

News: 1. The male who breeds may be the one who stayed out of the fight (too small), and was just standing around with the females, looking on. (Hey, girls, I have a GREAT idea! Let’s go for a stroll … ) You seem to think that this contradicts evolution by natural selection. It just means there may be more than one reproductive strategy. The balance between reproductive strategies can vary even in closely related species. In mountain gorillas, for instance, strong male dominance is preferred by females in areas where there is a higher risk of predation of the young. News: 2. The offspring who survive may be the ones who have an immunity to a common viral or bacterial disease, irrespective of other factors that would recommend them in any way. In which case, the next generation will have more members with immunity. That's called evolution by natural selection. Zachriel

Since many extinctions seem to occur due to natural disasters, I think there are three basic rules to Natural Selection: Location, Location, Location!!! William J Murray