Natural Selection is described as “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype”. To this, some add “blind, mindless, and purposeless environmental process” that nonetheless is imagined turning random genetic mutations into superior new features enhancing descendants’ survivability (fitness). Accumulation of these features supposedly turns one lifeform into another over time. Natural Selection seeks to explain the appearance of design in nature without appealing to a designer.
This definition however fails the simplest test as different phenotypes survive different environments thus delinking phenotype from survivability. In a small farm, only organisms closely related to their wild cousins survive, but agribusinesses select for chickens with oversize breasts and research labs select for populations with specific genetic mutations requiring tight environments to survive. Although all these have different phenotypes, they do not possess an intrinsic phenotype “fitness” independent of the environment. In addition, who decides what is natural and what is not? Darwin considered domestication natural enough to include it as supporting argument. And as far as “blind, mindless, and purposeless”, all these are impossible to prove in addition to being utterly incompatible with the anthropic concepts of “better adapted” and “better fit”, both of which cannot be evaluated independent of survivability anyway.
Natural Selection is supposed to tie both ways survivability with phenotype, but this leaves out the environment which not only affects survivability directly, but also phenotype, itself a sum of genotype plus the environment, and even genotype that is a recurrent function of previous genotypes and the environment again. So in the end, survivability is a recurrent function of genotype, an infinite continuum of environments, and other unknown factors. While survivability can be measured as can be the individual genotype, measuring a population’s genotype is daunting at best, and the impact of the ever changing environment is simply impossible to evaluate. Phenotypes are impossible to define and measure in entirety even for one individual and, in addition, phenotype changes constantly from birth to adult to old age. We do see genetic mutations (unknowable if random) and we do know that, given a similar environment, extreme genotypes reduce survivability, yet we also know that a large variety of genotypes survive just fine in any population.
Fitness is never defined independently of survivability – this renders the fitness concept redundant especially since survivability can be measured while fitness cannot. Evolutionary Fitness is defined as the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection (reproductive success) of a genotype or phenotype in a given environment. “Survival of the fittest” is interpreted as: “Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.” Not only is survivability the only measure, but survivability also changes with the environment.
Natural Selection is Intelligent Selection which is always done by an Intelligent Selector such as Darwin’s breeder which is an intelligent and willful player that takes intentional actions to reach preset goals. Predators, plants, birds, insects or bacteria, all show intelligence and the willful pursuit of predetermined goals. When interacting with the inert environment, organisms self-select rather than being selected by this environment. As soon as the organism dies and becomes part of the lifeless universe, all selection of that entity ceases.
Selection is limited to a narrow set of possible adaptations – what is not there, cannot be selected. Among the most common adaptations are body color/size/shape, hair type, antibiotic/chemical resistance, and behavior, and even these are limited in scope. Farmers would like to grow walking chicken breasts the size of hogs that grow much faster and come in various flavors, but this is not happening despite their best efforts. Antibiotic resistant bacteria still cannot survive extreme temperatures and chemical concentrations and their resistance decreases when the stimulus is removed. Rabbits cannot turn green when hopping over grass and white just over winter, despite the clear advantage such camouflage would bring. Size of tails, horns, beaks, trees, etc. are all stable over time as tradeoffs limit their growth. Human intelligence, flying, swimming, venom, and all other desirable capabilities remain restricted to specific organisms. Domestication has greatly helped mankind’s progress, but it has not changed the nature of the target animals and plants despite intensive efforts to accelerate their evolution. Instead, humans only enhanced the built in characteristics of domestic organisms and simply did without – a huge civilization disadvantage – when those plants and animals were unavailable. Hence, selection does not “design”, is limited in scope to a few available characteristics, and is reversed as soon as the selection pressure ends.
Extinct organism were not flawed and their features were not “selected away”. Most characteristics of the extinct survive just fine in current organisms of which some changed so little over time they are called living fossils. Sure, the mammal eye might provide superior vision to insect eye, but nothing comes for free and tradeoffs ensure both survive. Organisms that have completely vanished cannot be characterized as flawed and it would not take much imagination to see them thriving in a current landscape. The environment may have changed dramatically over time, however on a macro scale, the environment affected all organisms making the “natural selection” explanation highly doubtful regarding why some organisms survived in their old form, why some went extinct and why others would survive in a changed form. Humans and apes shared the same environment in Africa so common genotype would not have caused our dramatic differences just as lions are not that different than leopard, the cheetah and the others.
What if anything should replace Natural Selection? Humans have applied the most intensive and targeted selective pressure on us and others with great results for our existence. Yet we have not transformed even one organism into another – not even the lowly eColi after decades of laboratory work (Lenski). Our dogs are still basic canines and our cats are still basic felines, not much different than their wild cousins. If anything, we had to adapt to them rather than them to us. The finch, the moth, the antibiotic resistant bacteria are still the original organisms, their hailed changes having reverted or proven simple adaptations. We are no smarter, more powerful or longer living (in absolute) than out primitive ancestors. Selection is not transformative, much less creative.
Humans would apply the Natural Selection method if feasible. But we don’t because it isn’t. A Natural Selection software would use a random generator and a selection criteria to maximize survivability in an available niche. For instance, a family vehicle should optimize the transport function (survivability) given a set of environmental constraints (regulations) and an existing design as starting point. Random minute changes could be tested and retained if the transport function is improved. However, this method can only remove minor oversights but will never create any new designs. Any significant departure such as a new fuel, material or environment either results in a suboptimal design, or requires a cascade of changes to improve the survivability function. That is why the auto industry, like most other industries, introduces minor redesign annually and major revamps every few years. And while even the minor improvements must come in harmonized packages rather than one off (to reduce negative ramifications), in the absence of those major redesigns a firm would shortly go extinct.
Designs do not transform into better designs without crossing an inevitable optimization gap. Given a certain environment, once a design is optimized for a certain function, it becomes suboptimal as soon as the function, the structure, or the materials changes. Until the new design is optimized for that particular change, it remains inferior to an old design already optimized to that environment. Humans optimize new designs (with multidimensional differences from previous versions) conceptually before abruptly replacing old designs. A Darwinist biologic gradual design transition would thus be impossible hence never observed in nature. Had the compound eye been optimized first, a transition to non-compound eye would inevitably had to be suboptimal for a while and vice versa. Only if all eye designs had started from the same point, each following an independent path and at the same pace would we have so many different designs today, each optimized for its function. This however implies a coordinated original grand design incompatible with Darwinian evolution.
Pro-Con Notes
Con: What about organic design? Isn’t that natural selection at work?
Pro: No. This is just iterative optimization of a given design. In this case, the wing shape, the material, the environmental forces and the optimization target are all given. The algorithm will not generate a new wing shape or material and it will stop converging as soon as the environment is less than perfectly defined. In addition, this design is radically different from the previous one, and the next iteration will certainly be radically different than this one (no gradualism).
Con: You just don’t understand natural selection.
Pro: If “natural selection” were hard to understand it would not be taught to young children. Instead, “natural selection” is more like very bad street magic where the bus is covered with the cloth and we then are asked to imagine it disappeared without even removing the cloth and showing us the empty space.
Why do they wear camouflage when they are not on the battlefield?
They just like to pose?
ETA I how did I not immediately think of the niche? Battlefield niche, beneficial trait. On leave niche, neutral trait!
This is your nonsense: “Squid work better than cows in the deep ocean.” and the following appropriate reply: “That’s nonsense – they do not live in that environment.” You don’t know what you write?
“differential survival” is trivial nonsense – we’re all different and some survive.
Yes, he promised you the “origin of species” – that is the transmutation never delivered.
The rest of your comment is total nonsense.
Can’t you read?
“…to many poisonous organisms and to many others like the peacock”
Darwinism has nothing to do with Biology. More like Astrology.
So do you have an alternative explanation for the diversity of extant and extinct life we see on Earth?
Nonlin.org,
It was a joke. Never mind.
Don’t worry about alternatives. Worry that you are stuck in a totally failed and illogical narrative.
Adaptations only count if they are shared by all organisms? Why, in that case there exist hardly any adaptive traits whatsoever.
Or providing any alternative explanation whatsoever…
I can see you boys ran out of arguments, not that you had anything half decent to begin with. I also see that you’re stuck in the nonsensical Darwinist narrative with little hope of getting out even when faced with the strongest logic and evidence.
So what’s the plan? Perhaps a chill-off period would be best. Afterwards, you either build some decent arguments in favor of your “theory” or you understand it’s total nonsense and give it up. I’m fine either way.
Cheers,
I did before you started this thread. I provided an example concerning eye colour differences in Drosophila. The outcome of the experiment can be reliably predicted beforehand, which is why it is used as a teaching tool.
Haha, repeat what? You have explained nothing.
The earth looks round because it is spherical in shape.
Now you can no longer claim I have explained nothing!
This is crazy indeed. Why are you incapable of explaining what you mean? So you did mean phenotypic plasticity?
I have never ever asked anyone a “tricky question”. You are being obnoxious now.
When a totally failed and illogical narrative is the only game in town, you don’t have much choice do you?
What does it say about any alternative that it cannot displace something which you yourself categorise as failed and illogical?
Another irony-meter bites the dust!
Strongest logic and evidence? Let’s check number 1:
Nonlin.org says: I found this definition using google, It doesn’t mention the environment, therefore “natural selection fails its definition.”
What? Strongest logic and evidence? That piece of illogical bullshit? It “fails its definition”? Now things have to fit definitions, rather than definitions fit the things? What kind of an idiot thinks that “failed definitions” make things false? Then she calls that bullshit “strongest logic and evidence”?
If Nonlin.org gets to understand the problem with that piece of shit I’ll be very, but authentically very, surprised. I won’t go for anything else until Nonlin.org can understand the problem she’s facing right there. Do you get it Nonlin? Do you understand that definitions abound, and that it’s no fault of a phenomenon if it’s not defined in all its details in a single sentence? That the fault is in the definer, not in what’s been defined? That, in this case, the fault is all yours for taking that definition, and its not mentioning the environment directly, too much to heart? Do you understand why “natural selection fails its definition” is an incredibly stupid argument?
Try first to make sure you understand what I’m saying. Only then try and answer. Otherwise you’ll continue in nonsensical circles.
I doubt you can do this, but let’s see. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see you try.
With regard to the peppered moth, how is this design feature implemented? Does some feature of the environment cause just the right mutation to appear so as to produce melanism? Does some feature of the environment cause that mutation to occur independently all through the population so it transforms into a melanistic population? Consider that the reason nobody knows what you mean may be that you have not said what you mean.
And another question: are you familiar with the Lederberg replica plating experiments?
If the only explanation for some phenomenon is demonstrated to be wrong, then we have to adjust to that and look for other candidate explanations. But a better (in the sense of closer fit to evidence, more predictive power) explanation is a short cut to scientific discovery.
Find a better explanation for the facts of evolution and you don’t need to argue against Darwinian theory.
Did you the notice the masthead of this site?
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Such tricky questions.
If you could see them then they were not properly camouflaged.
And such unlikely ever to be answered questions at that.
I did. But then I thought perhaps I was mistaken.
The issue is not “good” vs. “better”. The issue is “something that fails” (Darwinism) against “we need something else”. And Intelligent Design is definitely a good candidate for the “something else”.
It’s one month later. Any fresh ideas boys and girls?
Q: “When a totally failed and illogical narrative is the only game in town, you don’t have much choice do you?”
A: I don’t live in crazy-town.
Q: “With regard to the peppered moth, how is this design feature implemented?”
A: I am not the designer, but can see these designs have been endowed with adaptation features. That’s typical engineering practice.
Q: “are you familiar with the Lederberg replica plating experiments?”
A: Just read about it. Why?
Q: “Did you the notice the masthead of this site?”
A: Yes. I am looking forward to correcting my mistakes. Just point them out if you see any. But we’ll figure out together if they’re real mistakes.
Because they directly contradict your claims above about “endowed with adaptation features”. Mutations do not occur in response to need.
Mutations are different than adaptations. When you adapt to a virus you use your endowed adaptation features.
On another note, I am not sure ‘Lederbergs replica plate’ supports your conclusion that: “Mutations do not occur in response to need”.
Sure they do.
No they don’t. They occur irrespective of need.
No they don’t.
Prove it.
Once more: The carbonaria morph is genetically determined, so required a mutation.
Try to keep up, Nonlin
And that means what? Adaptations may or may not include mutations.
And of course the burden of proof is on he – the first – that said: “Mutations do not occur in response to need.”
False. The null hypothesis is that mutations occur randomly, which means that the burden of proof is in the positive claim. Namely, that they occur in response to need. Look for a good course on statistics. Once you’re at it, also take a few courses on biology, and a few on logic. You are in dire need of some education.
Learn the difference between presenting arguments, rather than mere declarations. Understand that the strength of your conviction doesn’t make you into The Authority, and doesn’t compensate for your lack of understanding. That the convolutions of your immature mind are not a sign of good, healthy, advanced, nonlinear thinking, but, rather, a reflexion of a muddy and misinformed mind. That just because your convoluted thinking appears to be “intelligence” to your equally misinformed friends, doesn’t mean anything else, but that they’re as immature as you are to understand the difference. Once you understand why your “arguments” (actually declarations) are so irreparably stupid, you’ll feel much better about yourself.
This is what the replica plating experiments show. You seem to be going in circles here.
Talk about logic! The two statements are not identical.
Of course, we also know that mutations are not random, but that’s another story (for that do your own research!)
“You seem to be going in circles here” as you’re just restating your position without actually proving it.
“Proving” isn’t what science does. But the replica plating experiments are evidence. What’s your alternative explanation for their results?
John, to Nonlin:
Silly evilutionist.
GodThe Designer granted antibiotic resistance to certain colonies — those that pleased him and honored his commandments — in anticipation of the trials to come. He girded them for the battle they would soon face, thus ensuring their victory.The other colonies, which had flouted his will — even to the extent of worshiping false gods, including Rumraket — were deprived of the mutations that they would soon desperately need. Like the Amalekites, they were utterly destroyed. The Designer had deserted them.
Let this be a lesson to you all.
The Lederbergs’ replica plating experiments showed that the mutations that enabled the cells to survive had occurred before the cells were exposed to the antibiotic. keiths has given us a theological interpretation. If that interpretation is set aside, we are left with the mutations having occurred for some damned reason or another, unconnected with the antibiotic challenge that was coming, unbeknownst to the cells.
And if that’snot good enough, there’s the Luria-Delbrück experiment too.
We can conclusively settle this with one word: Cancer.
Or how about deleterious mutations? If they only occurred in response to need, why are they mostly deleterious?
Gpuccio is claiming at UD that Szostak’s functional information is equivalent to his:
But as far as I can tell, Szostak’s definition uses the set of all the sequences that implement a given function with a higher fitness than the sequence to be measured, as the sequence space, while Puccio uses every possible AA combination.
Seems to me Szostak’s FI is therefore a measure of fitness, while Puccio’s is a meaningless probability calculation that has nothing to do with Szostak’s definition. Does that seem about right?
dazz,
I disagree.
gpuccio’s definition of functional information (FI) aligns with Hazen et al, 2007.
There’s nothing wrong with that definition of FI. It’s how gpuccio applies it that is utter garbage:
1) The only probability that it represents is of an arbitrary (i.e. random) sequence in an equiprobable space.
2) Using an observed level of functionality as a threshold is, in fact, Texas Sharp Shooter.
3) gpuccio never ever considers the “other peaks”
I do enjoy the hand-waving casualness of his dismissal of any aspects of Jack’s work that he doesn’t like, while ardently retaining that which he (erroneously, heh) thinks helps him.
gpuccio’s claim that I criticized his definition of FI is completely without foundation. He is severely lacking in reading comprehension, or in honesty.*
* that’s not an XOR.
Oh, my bad, I got it mixed up with another paper, posted by Mung a few days ago: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2010/2688/pdf/10231.GiancarloRaffaele.Paper.2688.pdf
As I understand, the test just checks for preexisting antibiotic resistance. It is not necessary that any of the bacteria survives.
The claim that the test shows “mutations do not occur in response to need” is unsupported. It’s much harder to prove an impossibility, and a simple observational test like Lederberg just doesn’t do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility.
Other experiments suggest mutations may occur in response to need: http://nonlin.org/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance-stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/. At a minimum, we know that both antibiotics and antibiotic resistance are part of the biologic arsenal.
Then we agree on Lederbergs’. It’s not clear what Luria-Delbrück shows. Spontaneous mutations can be part of the antibiotic arsenal.
How so?
Anyway, are we still talking about ‘Natural Selection – evolution magic’?
It’s perfectly fine to appeal to “Natural Selection” if you’re ignorant of the true cause or causes.
Round and round we go. We went through this remember? Moths do not tan, so the rise in the frequency of the carbonaria morph was due to an increase in the frequency of the genetic variant that gives rise to it; An allele that originated in a mutation event. You can squirm all you want, but the fact remains that this particular adaptation required a mutation, not some “endowed adaptation feature” (whatever that means).
Now please go back and answer John’s question: What is your alternative explanation?
That is true, but Nonlin happens to appeal to Design.
Natural selection as the cause of what? Adaptations?
I was rebutting Mung’s implicit claim that mutations occur in response to need (I objected that they occur regardless of need).
You are confused. The bacteria were grown without anbitiotic present, and were then transferred to a plate with antibiotic. Only some of the original colonies transferred were able to continue growing, which shows that only some of the bacteria had the mutations that give resistance to the antibiotic. And these must have occurred before exposure to the antibiotic, which implies those mutations did not occur in response to the need for antibiotic resistance. They had occurred regardless, and by chance some of those mutations gave the bacteria antibiotic resistance.
What superior alternative interpretation of the facts:
1. Bacteria were grown without antibiotic on a plate.
2. When transferred to another plate with antibiotic, only some of the transferred colonies could grow there.
– can you offer?