Marmorkrebs disprove “Natural Selection”

(F) Growth differences of five juveniles from dam B that were size-matched in stage 6 and then cultured in an aquarium without shelter. 34 days later, one specimen was in stage 11, one in stage 9 and three were in stage 7. Scale bar, 4 mm.

The facts

A 2008 study popularized by Michael Blastland in his book, ‘The Hidden Half’, shows that genetically identical crayfish (clones) from the same batch and grown in a tightly controlled identical environment vary wildly in size, lifespan, behavior, appearance, growth rate, molting, reproduction, etc.

The microenvironment

In this case, the microenvironment is that which is supposed to explain the differential development of genetically identical organisms from the same cohort and in the same environment. This microenvironment thus includes disparate factors such as the proximity to the aquarium glass, to the light and – why not? – to the moon, the birth order, feeding order, randomness, etc. None of these has been proven determinant. Furthermore, the eye opener is the sensitivity to ‘whatever’ and the developmental range, not the ‘whatever’ itself. Especially since the purpose of homeostasis is to make the organism insensitive to the environment let alone the ‘whatever microenvironment’.

 The meaning 

If “fitness” were a valid concept, these clones grown in identical environments would have identical “fitness” and “natural selection” would not be able to distinguish. But the phenotypes vary considerably, so there is plenty for “natural selection” to select. But what exactly would be selected? Not the gene, but an unknown factor. Which makes “natural selection” an imaginary force. The story of the shotgun marriage… err modern synthesis… is thus invalid.

The extra 

Couple that with the known long term coexistence of different alleles that are therefore not being selected “naturally”. And couple again with the homeostasis that affords organisms to pretty much ignore “the niche” and the environment to a large extent.

What else

We have known from twin studies that they are far from identical in appearance and behavior despite same genes and environment. We have also known that the genome contains insufficient data (not information!!! which is what one makes of the data) to specify the development or the structure or the behavior of any organism. Let alone all three. Therefore, we [should] have known that there’s something else besides genome and environment. Marmorkrebs only confirm what we knew: the “fitness-natural-selection-evolution” story is false.

 The conclusion 

“Fitness” is irrelevant, “natural selection” is an imaginary force, “evolution” has no valid mechanism therefore is false one more way.

Links:

Different phenotypes from same genotype…

Wiley publication

Hidden-Half-World-Conceals

Wikipedia: epigenetics

7 thoughts on “Marmorkrebs disprove “Natural Selection”

  1. Michael Blastland makes some excellent points. Specifically “Avoid unwarranted certainty, neat narratives and partisan presentation; strive to inform, not persuade. ”
    Heh.

  2. Blastland is just a journalist. He is not directing the marmorkrebs show. Yet that show has a meaning which should not be ignored: “natural selection’s” sole purpose was to link phenotypes with genetics and environment. It obvious does not do the job, therefore it is not real.

    Tangentially, “avoid partisan presentation” is hilarious. Does that EVER happen?

  3. Furthermore, the eye opener is the sensitivity to ‘whatever’ and the developmental range, not the ‘whatever’ itself. Especially since the purpose of homeostasis is to make the organism insensitive to the environment let alone the ‘whatever microenvironment’.

    What on earth does all that mean ?

  4. graham2: What on earth does all that mean ?

    It doesn’t mean anything. Nonlin is just throwing words together in order to make their rejection of the modern synthesis seem more exciting than it really is.

  5. graham2:
    Furthermore, the eye opener is the sensitivity to ‘whatever’ and the developmental range, not the ‘whatever’ itself. Especially since the purpose of homeostasis is to make the organism insensitive to the environment let alone the ‘whatever microenvironment’.

    What on earth does all that mean ?

    It means three things:
    1. The developmental range is enormous. Those are identical twins raised in the same environment. Look at the picture. Could you imagine human twins as different as those?
    2. They already controlled the environment as well as possible. If those developmental differences are in response to minute differences of whatever, say the proximity to heat, the response function is high (see picture) to something small. That’s high sensitivity.
    3. The purpose of homeostasis is to make the organism insensitive to the environment. Marmorkrebs have homeostasis just like all other organisms. We thus expected them to be identical because identical DNA, environment, homeostasis, and cohort. But look at them how different they are.

  6. Nonlin.org: The purpose of homeostasis is to make the organism insensitive to the environment.

    Homeostais involves changing the internal states of the organism to remain within a viable range as the environment changes. This requires that the organism be sensitive to the environment. If it cannot detect changes in the environment and respond to those changes by modifying its own internal states, the organism cannot remain viable.

  7. Kantian Naturalist: Homeostais involves changing the internal states of the organism to remain within a viable range as the environment changes.

    No. It’s the internal equilibrium state. It can be achieved by external means such as movement along a chemical gradient or into the sun/shade.

    Kantian Naturalist: This requires that the organism be sensitive to the environment.

    No. We wear clothes to become insensitive to the weather. At least as much as possible. Animal skin and fur does that job too.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.