Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The magical power to simply create information:

Here, commenting on Does anyone remember Richard Dawkins in the New York Times mocking Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution, a Darwin stalwart huffs:

So in nature NS is also a non-random force (the weak, sick and old are always selected against), it is the very antithesis of random, as we can usually judge who in the heard will not live to breed. It is of course slower than human selection but still incredibly powerful.

If the NY Times explained this, then well done the NY Times.

Just think of it: “(the weak, sick and old are always selected against)”

This guy actually believes that. I sure hope he doesn’t teach somewhere—and fail, in both senses of the word, students who don’t shout the shot back at him.

Yes, Darwin’s followers convince themselves that life is that simple. But of course it isn’t. For one thing:

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 … )

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.

Or else they were just not standing on the cliff edge when it broke off. Or something.

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.

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.

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
" natural selection is environmental “encouragement” " Careful there AVS, we're talking about unguided evolution here. Maybe you mean an appearance of encouragement?ppolish
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Mutations provide the innovation, natural selection is environmental "encouragement" of the innovation and is the driong force behind adaptation. No?AVS
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Indeed ppolish, not only is natural selection 'not a creative force' it is a formidable destructive force.Box
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Exactly Box. Natural Selection has eliminated far more innovations than it has preserved.ppolish
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Natural selection is the grim reaper killing off the vast majority of the utterly mind-blowing inventions by pure randomness.Box
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
…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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
“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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
I'm curious where you get the idea that selection has no creative power.Petrushka
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
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
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
And Darwinism can answer everything it is just like goddidit!!!!Andre
January 21, 2015
January
01
Jan
21
21
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply