Natural Selection- What is it and what does it do?

Well let’s look at what natural selection is-

 “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation
Inheritance
Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output. But is it really non-random as Allen said? Nope, whatever survives to reproduce survives to reproduce. And that can be any number of variations taht exist in a population.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don’t know until it happens.

Can’t tell what variation will occur. Can’t tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing “beneficial” variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet.

So what does it do?

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.

Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti’s book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled “Wobbling Stability”. In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:

Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.

Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.

It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

Not such a powerful designer mimic after all.

But there is one thing it can do- it can undo what artificial selection has done.

557 thoughts on “Natural Selection- What is it and what does it do?

  1. Joe G: I already have shown it. YOU choked on it, as usual.

    Citation please for where you show that a specific combination of protein-to-protein binding sites in an extant organism were designed.

  2. Joe G:
    Us = humans and just present whatever evidence you have- give it your best shot.

    I can’t explain the origin of the universe, remember? Therefore I lose.

  3. Joe G: OK I get it- you have no intention of staying on topic nor can you support your position.

    Lol. You make a specific claim, I call you on it now I’m off topic.

    You are fooling nobody Joe, except yourself.

  4. Joe G: All you can do is act like a cry-baby, but that isn’t an act…

    Still want to meet up Joe? I’ll be in the US again next month, just name a time and a place.

  5. Joe G: That is the topic- evolutionism has nothing and it shows.

    So what to replace it with Joe? Got anything?

  6. Yes I have something to replace the failed evolutionism but that is not on-topic.

    But I do understand why you want to change the topic- cowards always try to change the topic when their nonsense is exposed.

  7. Joe G: The topic is about NATURAL SELECTION and YOU are the obvious fool.

    Indeed. And in response to several well written detailed posts containing useful information plus a way to start to test some of your claims you say:

    Joe G: If you have an equation with three inputs- each random- then the output will tend to also be random.

    Then there are competeing advantageous traits- changing environments which means what is advantageous will also change- cooperation which makes NS moot and behavioural changes that trump genetics.

    You are simply not capable of understanding the topic Joe, so why don’t you just give up.

    Joe G: Joe F-

    Your fitness levels change- they change from day to day, generation to generation. Then there are random effects that can wipe out even the most fit.

    Also fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.

    Here, let me repeat one of the specific questions you are ignoring:

    In fact, if there were no fitness differences the chance of ending up all AA is only 1 part in 2,000,000. But with these fitness differences, does natural selection change that noticeably? Come on JoeG, tell us. There is a simple formula, and you’re the expert, apparently. If it’s enough to say “it’s a crap shoot” and “it’s random” then is it still 1 in 2,000,000? Or more? How much more?

    Well Joe? More, less or what? Don’t know? Just admit it.

  8. Joe G: Where and when did I claim that evolution can do nothing but break things?

    Right here, in your opening post.

    Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet.

    So what does it do?

    <snip quotes from Provine and Sermonti>

    Not such a powerful designer mimic after all.

    But there is one thing it can do- it can undo what artificial selection has done.

    So, a fair reading of your OP would be that natural selection can only break things.

  9. Joe G: Meet up with an anonymous loser who is a known liar and coward? As if you will show…

    Find out. Time and place. And when we arrange it, I’ll tell you exactly who I am if that makes you happy.

  10. Joe G:
    YOU tell us. Or just admit that your position is total nonsense.

    Who’s “us”?

    Who’s the designer? When, how, and where did the designer design whatever it designed? What did it design and what didn’t it design? When, how, and where did the designer originate? Who or what designed the designer? If you can’t answer those questions just admit that your position is total nonsense.

    You’re the one making claims about natural selection in your OP. YOU need to support them, and not with appeals to authority nor with demands that others prove the opposite of what you claim. Please stay focused and on topic.

  11. Magical ratchet- they think it is a magical ratchet…

    You should copyright that term and put it in a fake science children’s book. “Natural Selection: The Magic Ratchet”. That would be a hoot.

  12. Joe G: Yes I have something to replace the failed evolutionism but that is not on-topic.

    Then I think that Elizabeth would be more then happy to have another new post where you go into detail about this “replacement”.

    Or perhaps you can just link to it, to save going further off topic? But you won’t, will you?

  13. Another loser chimes in- natural selection is not all of evolution. And nothing I said states that natural selection breaks things. Undoing what AS has domne is not the same as breaking things.

    Thank you for continuing to prove taht you are clueless…

  14. William J. Murray: You should copyright that term and put it in a fake science children’s book. “Natural Selection: The Magic Ratchet”. That would be a hoot.

    You and Joe should write a book.

  15. Joe G: Another loser chimes in- natural selection is not all of evolution.

    Where does evolution create then Joe?

  16. olegt: Right here, in your opening post.

    So, a fair reading of your OP would be that natural selection can only break things.

    And joe has specifically claimed that many times.

  17. Joe G: But I do understand why you want to change the topic- cowards always try to change the topic when their nonsense is exposed.

    When you refuse to answer legitimate questions regarding your own OP (such as the ones I’ve quoted) then what alternative is there to changing the topic?

  18. Joe G: Until evos start supporting their position I don’t have to do anything but point and laugh.

    You could do what real scientists do and create a replacement for a failed position.

    And Joe, you’ll never be able to do anything *but* point and laugh. You are not and never will be anything approaching a scientist.

  19. Joe G: Evo silence supports my claims. Evo inability to support their position supports my claims.

    So no actual positive evidence for your claims then Joe?

    No actual surprise there then.

  20. Joe G: When someone asks a legitimate, on-topic question I will answer it.

    Joe Felsenstein:
    Sure, it’s a “crap shoot” but one can see the effects of natural selection (and I will use that phrase).Suppose we have a random-mating population of 1,000,000 individuals, with three genotypes: aa,Aa,andAA whose fitnesses are1.0, 1.001, and 1.002.We start with one copy of the A allele and all the resta. The outcome, if there is no migration or mutation, is that the population ends up allaaor allAA. A crap shoot?Yes, as Cubist said, with loaded dice.Casinos base their business model on that.

    In fact, if there were no fitness differences the chance of ending up allAAis only 1 part in 2,000,000. But with these fitness differences, does natural selection change that noticeably? Come on JoeG, tell us. There is a simple formula, and you’re the expert, apparently. If it’s enough to say “it’s a crap shoot” and “it’s random” then is it still1 in 2,000,000?Or more?How much more?

    Oh, and yes, this is in an oversimplified model, the Wright-Fisher model.But using such models is the starting point for insight. Insisting that “it’s random” and “it’s a crap shoot” and stopping there is simply the end of attempting to get any insight.

    go on then.

  21. OMTWO: You and Joe should write a book.

    Yeah, it could be titled: “Psychoplasmic leprechauns are the designers, EVOTARDS!”

  22. The actual positive evidence for my claims is in the real world- the world you ignore as if your ignorance means something

  23. Joe G: And nothing I said states that natural selection breaks things.

    LOL WUT? What the hell does undo mean? And didn’t you write somewhere that

    blind, undirected evolution can still break things…

    Joe, you are awfully bad at hiding. Everyone can see you. :)

  24. Joe G: Also I answered him….

    For certain values of “answer” that is indeed true. And I guess that’ll have to do.

  25. Joe G:
    That is the topic- evolutionism has nothing and it shows.

    You said the topic is natural selection, not evolutionism. Please stay on topic.

  26. Joe G:
    LoL! Nice out-of-context quote-mine….

    You did say that undirected evolution breaks things, didn’t you? How is that out of context? Was was the context that supposedly change the meaning of those words? Come on, enlighten us, Joe.

  27. Not in this thread, oleg. Also I said it CAN- which means it doesn’t have to.

    But anyway thanks for continuing to prove that you are nothing but a joke…

  28. Joe G:
    As I said before first you have to demonstrate that you understand what ID says. You have not done so.

    What does natural selection have to do with a “designer mimic”? Please stay on topic.

  29. Natural selection was “invented” to be a designer mimic- again your ignorance, while funny, means nothing…

  30. Well discussing natural selection makes evos get even more belligerent than normal. So maybe it does something after all….

    :)

  31. Joe G: Also I said it CAN- which means it doesn’t have to.

    You mean in the same way that the first organism with an advantageous trait *could* be crushed by a falling tree before it can breed but won’t necessarily be so crushed?

    Interesting….

  32. Joe G: Not in this thread, oleg. Also I said it CAN- which means it doesn’t have to.

    In this thread, you said there is one thing natural selection can do. It sounds like you meant only one. There is no evidence to the contrary in any of your writings.

  33. Joe G: Well discussing natural selection makes evos get even more belligerent than normal. So maybe it does something after all….

    Where do new protein binding sites originate from then?

    We’ve established now that NS does nothing. So what does, according to Joe?

Comments are closed.