Sexual Selection Is Not Helpful to “Evolution”?

Can you say “breast implants”? Standard of beauty same as 30,000 years ago.
Venus of Willendorf

Can you say “breast implants”? Standard of beauty same as 30,000 years ago. That is more than 1,000 generations of NO “evolution”!

When no one can address their “fitness” function – because there is no such thing as a “fitness” function – it’s clear that “evolution” is dead in the water and nothing more needs to be added to disprove the failed hypothesis. And yet proponents never learn. Still, shooting the Darwinist fish in a barrel is fun. Enjoy.

  1. Sexual selection tries to explain sexual dimorphism and more. According to the theory, certain conspicuous physical traits, such as pronounced coloration, increased size, or striking adornments have “evolved” through sexual selection. The selecting sex often displays similar but subdued ornaments, indicating a sort of sexual selection leak from the selected to the selecting if the theory is true. Sexual selection is independent and often in conflict with “natural selection” when the sexually selected traits appear detrimental to general survival of the species. The extinct Irish Elk Deer is the standard example of detrimental sexual selection.
  2. At least two incompatible mating behaviors have been randomly grouped under “sexual selection”. One is “select the display”, while the other is “fight for mating rights”. The first one looks somewhat like selection. In the second case the dominant male mates indiscriminately, so there is no selection of the female and the female cannot turn down the dominant male, so there is no selection there either. Other schemes are “save the sperm” and “adopt a male”, both of which are not associated with any selection.
  3. Sexual selection would be just “natural selection” if such thing existed, contrary to Darwin’s contrived distinction. Fighting males for instance do not give females any choice. The “better fit” simply has more offspring by force. The female, predator, pray, parasites, community, and the environment in general, they all “select” the “best fit” whatever that means. If sexual selection were true, then there were also be predator selection as well as pray, parasite, community, kin, and so on ad infinitum selection, all conflicting with each other. Or to sum, no “natural selection”. No wonder Alfred Russel Wallace thought the idea of sexual selection as a driving force in “evolution” crazy.
  4. There is no sexual selection distinct from ‘Attraction to Universal Beauty’. Our tastes differ from bugs to humans in large part due to sensory limitations. But otherwise we all have the same standards of beauty. All organisms are intrigued by shapes, colors, contrasts, movements, sounds. We like other beautiful organism and inanimate objects. The cat likes the mouse and the mouse appreciates the cat’s beauty. Just as humans like both the dangerous lion and the cute, tasty pig. And everyone finds everyone’s babies more attractive. What animals like in one another is hard to tease due to their limited communication, but humans like the peacock as the peahen does, the lion as the lioness, the butterfly, the puppy, kitten, dragonfly, cricket, pup seal, cub bear, and many, many more as their own kind do. We can’t even get enough of the ugliest – pug dog, sphynx cat, lizards, snakes, vultures, and more – devoting much to bring them near us. And if we humans like them all, they would probably appreciate each other too across all species, were it not for fear, sensory and intelligence limitations. ”At least humans are not sexually attracted to animals” would be the counterargument. Would any human have sex with a peacock? A rabbit?? A cat, bat, fish (well, mermaid)??? Oh no, they would… as erotic animal costumes show. What a shame!
  5. Contrary to sexual selection that is expected to drift randomly, the standards of beauty remain essentially unchanged. Consider an “evolutionary” proto-bird. Million of years later, suppose the proto-bird split due to random events and various environments into the many bird species we see today. Then – to take one example – the current beautiful peacock is just the product of a series of random events and of its own female’s search for beauty. There is nothing in its current environment that demands that particular look. And why exactly is the peahen so desperate for that particular look? She isn’t. There is nothing in her little skull, genes, environment, or anywhere else that demands that particular look. She is only intrigued by beauty like the rest of us. Any beauty, not just the standard peacock beauty. If some peacock decides to build a beautiful bower (not suddenly, just amassing shiny objects in a first gen) or another peacock finds his voice, another becomes more protective, or goes for a modern look, she’s liable to fall for that new fellow and change the course of peafowl history. Which in the end turns out to be no different than random. So why does the peacock look the way he does? Just random. Why do all dimorphic birds look and behave as they do? Just random. Why the lion’s mane, the woman’s breasts and on and on? Random again and again. Yet the “just random” Darwinist reply does not work as “easy come, easy go” – “random come, random go” whereas the standards of beauty remain essentially unchanged. As Venus of Willendorf shows, the human standard of beauty has not changed in at least 30,000 years or 1,000 generations, these days aided by breast and buttock implants. A hypothesized trend (“evolution”) that doesn’t budge for that long cannot be a real trend.
  6. Whatever happens to organisms is outside their control, hence sexual selection cannot shape organisms as Darwin imagined. The peahen is not responsible in the slightest for the peacock’s plumage. Even if it had an objective, the “selecting” sex has no means to get to that objective. The best example of what selection can do and cannot do is breeding. Human breeders indeed have the long term targets and the best technology available. Yet all they can do is fragile deformed variants of the wild that require a lot to survive and propagate and that under no circumstance will “diverge” into new “species”. Contrast that with the “selecting” bird. Why is she having sex? She doesn’t know. What is she looking for? She doesn’t know… whatever her beauty instinct tells her. She doesn’t read, write, or talk. Cannot correlate the beauty seen to underlying health of her peer. Doesn’t know she will have offspring, let alone how to improve their lot… if she even cares. We know all these because we, the humans, are also automatons with regard to our descendants. We know very little and can influence almost nothing. Countless number of parents hope for more from their children, yet are badly disappointed. Where are the descendants of famous rulers, scientists, artists, and athletes? Nowhere in particular. They all regressed to the mean. And it is even worse for some of those afflicted by “reason” as they decide to “save the planet” by not even having any offspring at all.
  7. Incorrect assumptions drive the confused “evolution through sexual selection” narrative: that the selection has a direction – without a direction, there is no output different than random; that the selected passes most of his characteristics to the progeny – this disregards regression to the mean as well as the contribution of the other parent, meaning the selector; that the phenotype is entirely encoded in the genotype – if this were the case, we would be able to control 100% of the phenotype by changing the genome, but it’s clear that’s not possible even theoretically; that successive mutations can accomplish anything as long as sexual selection guides the output – this is clearly false as breeding shows when comparing the robustness of crossbreeds with the feebleness of purebreds. Of course Darwin was clueless about genetics. But even with our current best knowledge of genetics – knowledge that the selecting sex completely lacks – it is not clear what sexual selection accomplishes, given that the Y chromosome is just a very small percentage of the genome. After all, offspring inherit both lineages regardless of sex. So if the male progeny is attractive like the male parent (a positive), that may be offset by both the male and female offspring becoming more attractive to the predator too (two negatives). For instance, in some peafowl, even the peahen has some conspicuous blue streaks that cannot help her camouflage.
  8. In conclusion, “evolution” by sexual selection is one confused mess because:
    1. The distinction between sexual selection and “natural selection” (if such thing existed) is contrived
    2. Incompatible mating behaviors are incorrectly grouped under the same banner
    3. Attraction to Universal Beauty is what is incorrectly interpreted as sexual selection
    4. The standard of beauty is essentially unchanged contrary to the Darwinist narrative
    5. Whatever happens to organisms is outside their control, hence sexual selection cannot shape organisms as Darwin imagined
    6. Darwin’s sexual selection hypothesis is based on a number of incorrect and ignorant assumptions

 Links:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/224257/the-evolution-of-beauty-by-richard-o-prum/

https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection

https://www.treehugger.com/ugliest-animals-on-the-planet-4869328

https://www.amazon.com/peacock-costumes-women/s?k=peacock+costumes+for+women

https://www.amiclubwear.com/costume-animal.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf#/media/File:Venus_of_Willendorf_-_All_sides.jpg 

0

222 thoughts on “Sexual Selection Is Not Helpful to “Evolution”?

  1. Entropy:
    CharlieM: That seems to be something you read into it.

    Entropy: I know. Apparently it’s indeed something I misunderstood. I said as much. But you missed the first part of Nonlin’s “answer” (even though you quoted it):

    Nonlin.org: What a stupid thing to say! No implants 30,000 years ago? You think?!?

    Entropy: That means that Nonlin imagines that people were performing breast implants 30,000 years ago. So I said, and you quoted:

    Or it could mean that he/she was being sarcastic.

    0
  2. Nonlin.org:
    I don’t know about you two… Please don’t explain. Probably something disgusting… And why expose yourselves so shamelessly in public?

    It’s what you implied you little idiot. It’s you who wrote that in an OP about sexual selection. It’s you who exposed himself so shamelessly in public.

    0
  3. Allan Miller: This makes the fundamental error of believing that everything about maleness is ‘encoded’ in the Y chromosome (which of course is a mammalian feature anyway;

    Not an error I make.

    Allan Miller: Sticking with mammals, the Y effectively acts principally as a switch.

    That’s my take too.

    Allan Miller: So we can get the interesting situation that the preference for tail length (if genetically based) and the preferred tail length both co-occur in the genomes of both sexes.

    And this is the stupid self-referential part I exposed in 5. Of course, you cannot either forecast nor explain the peacock’s tail. Factor in the persistent standard of beauty (as shown) and you see why “sexual selection” fails so miserably.

    Allan Miller: There is nothing particularly special going on here in relation to fitness, except that a gene involved in a particular gender-specific character only exerts a phenotypic effect in 50% of the bodies it resides in, and hence is invisible to selection half the time.

    Again, like I said in 3. – this would be “natural selection” if such thing existed. But we know there’s no such thing as “fitness”. Which guarantees no “natural selection” either.

    Allan Miller: This is little different from a recessive characteristic, only visible to selection when it meets itself.

    Utterly false. We know that recessive characteristics are conserved and not “selected” either way. As Mendel first showed.

    Allan Miller: Darwin was unaware of the underlying genetics we now know in detail. But his instincts were spot on.

    Doublecheck your math. Your compass is stuck too.

    CharlieM: Reading what Nonlin wrote, I would take that to mean some modern people resort to plastic surgery to try to emulate the curves that are seen in these figurines, not that ancient people were performing breast or buttock implantations.

    Don’t mind the angry little monkey. He doesn’t get explanations.

    0
  4. Nonlin.org: Don’t mind the angry little monkey. He doesn’t get explanations.

    You must mean you, since I understood the explanation all right.

    I won’t bother linking back to my comment about it. What for? It’s not as if you’d read it this time around. It’s not as if you’d be able to read it this time around.

    0
  5. Nonlin.org: Not an error I make.

    Then it is not clear why you mention the Y at all. Here’s your sentence again:

    it is not clear what sexual selection accomplishes, given that the Y chromosome is just a very small percentage of the genome. After all, offspring inherit both lineages regardless of sex. 

    If you recognise that gender specific differences are distributed throughout the genome, why does the Y, and its percentage of the genome, matter?

    And this is the stupid self-referential part I exposed in 5. Of course, you cannot either forecast nor explain the peacock’s tail.

    What’s forecasting got to do with anything? I see this criticism of evolution a lot. It’s moronic.

    Factor in the persistent standard of beauty (as shown) and you see why “sexual selection” fails so miserably.

    You replace it with nothing of value. If peacock tails represent a ‘persistent standard of beauty’, why don’t we all fancy peacocks?

    Again, like I said in 3. – this would be “natural selection” if such thing existed. But we know there’s no such thing as “fitness”.

    We know no such thing. You simply declare it.

    Utterly false.

    Utterly true.

    We know that recessive characteristics are conserved and not “selected” either way. As Mendel first showed.

    Mendel never mentioned selection. Still, the ‘characteristics’ are only phenotypically visible in the homozygous state, so are not available to even hypothetical selection in heterozygotes.

    +1
  6. Nonlin.org,

    Has anything changed? I hear so but don’t see so.

    That is an admission of wilful ignorance. Which is refreshing. Yes, there is a subject going by the name of ‘Genetics’ which is a substantial update on Darwin’s understanding of heredity. I realise it is something of a closed book to you.

    Allan Miller: Not sure why that [the complex cell] is an example of evolution being caught off-guard by a development in genetics.

    Nonlin. Exquisite Design. Get it?

    Nope. You still haven’t said why it is a development in genetics. It is increasingly clear you don’t even know what genetics even is.

    Allan Miller: Haha. HGT only has meaning in an evolutionary scenario.

    Nonlin: Stop infringing.

    Infringing? On what? What’s transferred if genes don’t actually transfer between lineages? How do you detect it if you don’t have a vertical descent pattern to detect it against? What is HGT to a Creationist?

    Anyway, it is a problem because you have to come up with stupider stories than the original stupid story.

    If you want a stupid story, there’s this one about some Cosmic Bloke creating everything …

    Allan Miller: How is a common code evidence against common descent?

    Nonlin: Against “evolution”. First off, code doesn’t write itself.

    Equivocation on ‘code’. It is at best an encoding, not a program written by a ‘coder’.

    Second, it refuses to “evolve”.

    Not quite true, but does it need to? Evolution does not mean that everything is guaranteed to change. The observation of something unchanging does not mean that nothing changes. This is like arguing against running because you saw someone standing still.

    Allan Miller: How big should the genome be for evolution to remain viable?

    Nonlin: Not related.

    You brought it up. You reckon its unexpectedly small size is a problem for “evolution”, implying bigger would be OK. Can’t defend your own points?

    +1
  7. Nonlin.org: Me: The results supported the idea that the long ornamental tail evolved through female choice.

    Nonlin: This doesn’t follow. As I explained in 4. and 6. specifically.

    4.: “Everybody would want to have sex with that saucy peacock”
    6.: “It’s not planned ahead like design, so it doesn’t count”

    Not convincing.

    Nonlin.org: Are those examples of “sexual selection” in the Darwinist book?!?

    and

    Nonlin.org: You overreach.

    and

    Nonlin.org: I don’t know about you two… Please don’t explain. Probably something disgusting… And why expose yourselves so shamelessly in public?

    Typically Nonlin. You don’t actually know what sexual selection is, do you?

    To make sure we are on the same page: Could you define sexual selection in your own words, please?

    0
  8. CharlieM: At the local meeting of the WRI (Widowbird’s Royal Institute) Wendy was telling the crowd about the bird of her dreams:

    Although I appreciate your mode of delivery, you seem to be missing the fact that the female widowbirds discriminate between different males. The paper establishes empirically that they have preferences.

    0
  9. Allan Miller: Then it is not clear why you mention the Y at all.

    To point out one entity is NOT “selecting” another entity. There is no “other entity”. The population would be “selecting” itself which is stupid.

    Allan Miller: What’s forecasting got to do with anything? I see this criticism of evolution a lot. It’s moronic.

    A theory that doesn’t forecast is moronic. Theories must forecast to be useful and to be validated.

    Allan Miller: If peacock tails represent a ‘persistent standard of beauty’, why don’t we all fancy peacocks?

    Are you a peacock?

    Allan Miller: We know no such thing. You simply declare it.

    No. I don’t declare it. I proved it and you proved it right back by not providing the “fitness” of anything. Not even yours. You (or someone else?) once pitifully attempted to pass some reproductive statistic as “fitness”. That didn’t fly, remember?

    Allan Miller: Utterly true.

    We know that recessive characteristics are conserved and not “selected” either way. That makes your statement on “selection” false.

    Allan Miller: Mendel never mentioned selection.

    Of course he didn’t. There’s none. Like I said.

    Allan Miller: Still, the ‘characteristics’ are only phenotypically visible in the homozygous state, so are not available to even hypothetical selection in heterozygotes.

    OK. But this doesn’t help your initial statement.

    0
  10. Corneel:
    CharlieM: At the local meeting of the WRI (Widowbird’s Royal Institute) Wendy was telling the crowd about the bird of her dreams:

    Corneel: Although I appreciate your mode of delivery, you seem to be missing the fact that the female widowbirds discriminate between different males. The paper establishes empirically that they have preferences

    I don’t dispute that they have preferences.

    But just look at how restrictively narrow the choices of a suitable mating partner is compared to human choices regarding sexual activity.

    0
  11. Allan Miller: Yes, there is a subject going by the name of ‘Genetics’ which is a substantial update on Darwin’s understanding of heredity.

    You keep trying to link genetics to Darwinist deadweight. Yet you never prove this imaginary link.

    Allan Miller: How do you detect it if you don’t have a vertical descent pattern to detect it against? What is HGT to a Creationist?

    Of course there’s a “vertical” descent pattern within the same population. And now you find DNA that seems to belong to other populations that clearly don’t fit the Darwinist narrative. I call that an opportunity to disprove “evolution”.

    Allan Miller: If you want a stupid story, there’s this one about some Cosmic Bloke creating everything …

    So you claim, but:
    1. We see nature is exquisitely designed
    2. We know there is no bottom-up design (despite you assuming that which you try to prove)
    3. We see plenty of top-down design examples

    Allan Miller: Equivocation on ‘code’. It is at best an encoding, not a program written by a ‘coder’.

    Yet a code IS executed to make all kind of wonderful things. Code absolutely requires a coder. Plenty of examples and NOT ONE contrary example.

    Allan Miller: This is like arguing against running because you saw someone standing still.

    So you say someone that stands still is also running at the same time?

    Allan Miller: You brought it up. You reckon its unexpectedly small size is a problem for “evolution”, implying bigger would be OK.

    If “evolution” were not disproven by many other observations, the DNA would still have to be big enough to contain all the code for making organisms. You try to write that code and see that it has no chance to fit in the DNA.

    And before you claim again DNA is not code, very well, take a memory stick the size of the DNA differential between monkey and human and write the full differential specification between a human and a monkey. Can you?

    Corneel: 4.: “Everybody would want to have sex with that saucy peacock”
    6.: “It’s not planned ahead like design, so it doesn’t count”

    Don’t know what you’re reading, but you’re way off.

    Corneel: To make sure we are on the same page: Could you define sexual selection in your own words, please?

    Read 1. 2. and 3.

    0
  12. Nonlin.org,

    Nonlin: You keep trying to link genetics to Darwinist deadweight. Yet you never prove this imaginary link.

    The topic was Darwin’s particular understanding of heredity – “gemmules and blending” – which has now been superseded by the science of genetics.

    Allan Miller: How do you detect it if you don’t have a vertical descent pattern to detect it against? What is HGT to a Creationist?

    Nonlin: Of course there’s a “vertical” descent pattern within the same population. And now you find DNA that seems to belong to other populations that clearly don’t fit the Darwinist narrative. I call that an opportunity to disprove “evolution”.

    You can only detect them by assuming evolution. This point evades you. You can’t disprove the thing which that disproof relies on!

    Allan Miller: If you want a stupid story, there’s this one about some Cosmic Bloke creating everything …

    Nonlin: So you claim, but:
    1. We see nature is exquisitely designed
    2. We know there is no bottom-up design (despite you assuming that which you try to prove)
    3. We see plenty of top-down design examples

    Still a ridiculous idea. “Let there be zebras! Lot’s of ’em! Let their methylmalonyl CoA epimerase differ from those of the horse just so! And Yea, from the snake in much greater measure! But at the same time let proteins not be variable in the minutest degree, lest their functions break. For verily I like a bit of irony”

    Allan Miller: Equivocation on ‘code’. It is at best an encoding, not a program written by a ‘coder’.

    Nonlin: Yet a code IS executed to make all kind of wonderful things. Code absolutely requires a coder.

    It’s not that kind of code. Saying it again don’t make it so! I spent my working life as a ‘coder’, and never once came up with an encoding – still less one involving interacting moving parts on the molecular scale.

    Plenty of examples and NOT ONE contrary example.

    I thought you had a downer on Affirming the Consequent?

    Allan Miller: This is like arguing against running because you saw someone standing still.

    Nonlin: So you say someone that stands still is also running at the same time?

    No.

    Allan Miller: You brought it up. You reckon its unexpectedly small size is a problem for “evolution”, implying bigger would be OK.

    Nonlin: If “evolution” were not disproven by many other observations, the DNA would still have to be big enough to contain all the code for making organisms. You try to write that code and see that it has no chance to fit in the DNA.

    So you think if it were bigger evolution would be on a surer footing, if you think its actual size an issue.

    And before you claim again DNA is not code, very well, take a memory stick the size of the DNA differential between monkey and human and write the full differential specification between a human and a monkey. Can you?

    This is hopelessly confused. The difference between human and monkey does not need to fit anywhere.

    +2
  13. Nonlin.org,

    Me: Then it is not clear why you mention the Y at all.

    Nonlin: To point out one entity is NOT “selecting” another entity. There is no “other entity”. The population would be “selecting” itself which is stupid.

    Selection increases the frequency of the trait, represented by the genes involved in the differential, wherever they reside.

    Allan Miller: What’s forecasting got to do with anything? I see this criticism of evolution a lot. It’s moronic.

    Nonlin: A theory that doesn’t forecast is moronic. Theories must forecast to be useful and to be validated.

    Haha. What does ID forecast?

    Allan Miller: If peacock tails represent a ‘persistent standard of beauty’, why don’t we all fancy peacocks?

    Nonlin: Are you a peacock?

    Yes, but that’s beside the point. You seem to have an interesting take on ‘universal’.

    Allan Miller: We know no such thing. You simply declare it.

    Nonlin: No. I don’t declare it. I proved it and you proved it right back by not providing the “fitness” of anything.

    Ah yes. You don’t declare it, you proved it. So you declare.

    Not even yours. You (or someone else?) once pitifully attempted to pass some reproductive statistic as “fitness”. That didn’t fly, remember?

    My fitness is 3. But it’s not about individuals. The relative performance of two alleles is the differential in the mean fitness of carriers and that of non-carriers. There must be such a differential, even if its value is zero. It has to be something or nothing; I can’t think of any other possibilities.

    Allan Miller: Utterly true.

    Nonlin: We know that recessive characteristics are conserved and not “selected” either way. That makes your statement on “selection” false.

    Not if you understood the statement it doesn’t.

    Allan Miller: Mendel never mentioned selection.

    Nonlin: Of course he didn’t.

    So he didn’t disprove anything in regard to it, did he?

    +2
  14. CharlieM: I don’t dispute that they have preferences.

    But just look at how restrictively narrow the choices of a suitable mating partner is compared to human choices regarding sexual activity.

    Just a few comments ago you basically denied intraspecies variation:

    Notice that the “extraordinary range” is between species and not between individuals of a species. For example, although very beautiful, all peacocks have essentially the same pattern and form of tail. The males of the species have a particular, regular standard to be aimed at.

    But if all males within a species are the same, then what use are female preferences? So now you are backpedaling again, arguing that there is less variation in animals than in humans. This is false too.
    What you want to be saying is that humans have more variation in personality than non-human animals and that this variation is more valuable. Why does variation in personality trump other types of variation? Because it makes humans special compared to non-human animals.

    The perfect circular argument. If only you would admit as much.

    0
  15. Nonlin.org: Don’t know what you’re reading, but you’re way off.

    Isn’t it annoying when people don’t invest in trying to understand your position?

    Nonlin.org: Me: To make sure we are on the same page: Could you define sexual selection in your own words, please?

    Nonlin: Read 1. 2. and 3.

    The closest to a definition I could find is:

    Sexual selection tries to explain sexual dimorphism and more. According to the theory, certain conspicuous physical traits, such as pronounced coloration, increased size, or striking adornments have “evolved” through sexual selection.

    So sexual selection is defined as the theory that states that certain traits evolved through sexual selection. Yep, clear as mud. It’s as I expected: you don’t know what sexual selection is.

    My copy of Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary analysis defines sexual selection as:

    A difference, among members of the same sex, between the average mating success of individuals with a particular phenotype versus individuals with other phenotypes.

    So sexual selection occurs whenever there is variation in mating success among members of the same sex. Perhaps now you understand why your mention of puppies, kittens and babies strikes other people as a bit perverse in this particular context?

    +1
  16. Corneel:
    CharlieM: I don’t dispute that they have preferences.

    But just look at how restrictively narrow the choices of a suitable mating partner is compared to human choices regarding sexual activity.

    Corneel: Just a few comments ago you basically denied intraspecies variation:

    CharlieM: Notice that the “extraordinary range” is between species and not between individuals of a species. For example, although very beautiful, all peacocks have essentially the same pattern and form of tail. The males of the species have a particular, regular standard to be aimed at.

    What I was pointing out was not that there is no intraspecific variation. It was that within species there is no extraordinary range of variation.

    Corneel: But if all males within a species are the same, then what use are female preferences? So now you are backpedaling again, arguing that there is less variation in animals than in humans. This is false too.
    What you want to be saying is that humans have more variation in personality than non-human animals and that this variation is more valuable. Why does variation in personality trump other types of variation? Because it makes humans special compared to non-human animals.

    The perfect circular argument. If only you would admit as much.

    I am just pointing out the facts about mating and partner preferences. In humans it can be down to purely physical attributes, but I think that is the exception in long term relationships.

    What attracted Mrs Trump living in Florida to her mate? Or Mrs Ecclestone living in Switzerland? What were the reasons why Mrs Muhammad living a strict Muslim life in Pakistan became the mate of Mr Muhammad? What about Mr John from the U.K., how did he select his partner?

    That gives us a sample of humans to think about. Now let’s take a look at widowbirds.

    What attracted Mrs Widowbird living in South Africa to her mate? What about Mrs Widowbird living in Angola, how did she choose her mate? Or their cousin, goodness knows how many times removed, Mrs Widowbird living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, how did she choose her mate?

    I can understand why they would never dream of setting up home in the U.K.. In wet weather, they are unable to fly due to their elongated tails. 🙂

    0
  17. Allan Miller: The topic was Darwin’s particular understanding of heredity – “gemmules and blending” – which has now been superseded by the science of genetics.

    No. The topic is “sexual selection”. First link is to a dude that wrote something quite recently.

    Allan Miller: You can only detect them by assuming evolution.

    No. You may think HGT presupposes “evolution”. All I see is code that doesn’t belong according to “evolution”. And since you haven’t actually seen the transfer, your assumption is provisionally wrong.

    Allan Miller: Still a ridiculous idea. “Let there be zebras! Lot’s of ’em! Let their methylmalonyl CoA epimerase differ from those of the horse just so! And Yea, from the snake in much greater measure! But at the same time let proteins not be variable in the minutest degree, lest their functions break. For verily I like a bit of irony”

    You’re not pointing to anything wrong or discordant. Think of the car analogy. It works pretty much the same way.

    What I want to know is: why would “proteins not be variable in the minutest degree” on the account of “evolution”?!?

    Allan Miller: It’s not that kind of code. Saying it again don’t make it so! I spent my working life as a ‘coder’, and never once came up with an encoding – still less one involving interacting moving parts on the molecular scale.

    It’s executable code. You think the molecular scale is an impediment?!? It isn’t.

    Allan Miller: I thought you had a downer on Affirming the Consequent?

    “Plenty of examples” would be “Affirming the Consequent” were it not for “NOT ONE contrary example”. Get your logic straight. IOW, “if and ONLY if” is not “Affirming the Consequent”.

    Allan Miller: So you think if it were bigger evolution would be on a surer footing, if you think its actual size an issue.

    Who’s “it” and “its”?

    Allan Miller: This is hopelessly confused. The difference between human and monkey does not need to fit anywhere.

    You were confused from before. DNA1 makes a human. DNA2 makes a monkey. Difference must yield difference. (DNA1-DNA2) makes (human-monkey).

    Allan Miller: Selection increases the frequency of the trait, represented by the genes involved in the differential, wherever they reside.

    Self(!) selection. So humans can fly as they always dreamed if they just self select properly?!? Which one’s the gene for the peacock look? How about the gene for flying? Corneel is still thinking about this last one. Ain’t that so, Corneel?

    Allan Miller: What does ID forecast?

    That life is exquisitely designed. That we can learn from God (and His designs) and apply what we learn to our own designs. And every single day we learn something new about medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, math…, this forecast is proven. Again and again and again…

    That we will never ever understand the universe in full.

    That design is always top-down and never bottom-up (loosers still smash their feeble brains against this rock). That there will NEVER be a machine “singularity”.

    In fact, the single most important idea that drives science is that the universe is rational. This only comes from the belief in a superior intelligence.

    Allan Miller: Yes, but that’s beside the point. You seem to have an interesting take on ‘universal’.

    You confuse ‘universal’ with ‘uniform’.

    Allan Miller: My fitness is 3. But it’s not about individuals. The relative performance of two alleles is the differential in the mean fitness of carriers and that of non-carriers. There must be such a differential, even if its value is zero. It has to be something or nothing; I can’t think of any other possibilities.

    It’s got to be the individual because each individual gets “selected”. Based on what, if not on “fitness”? So if your fitness is 3, then show your work. This is not a multiple choice exam. OK, you might say that’s a noisy variable. Then calculate that mythical average mean or whatever. Yes, even the differential. What else you need? Extra exam time? You got it. What else?!? You must do better than “It’s got to be”. Until then, you actually prove for me that there’s no such thing as “fitness” or “selection”. Every second of delay. So take your time…

    Allan Miller: Not if you understood the statement it doesn’t.

    What am I missing?

    Allan Miller: So he didn’t disprove anything in regard to it, did he?

    His results do that for him.

    0
  18. CharlieM: Isn’t it annoying when people don’t invest in trying to understand your position?

    Not one bit. To each his own.

    Corneel: Yep, clear as mud. It’s as I expected: you don’t know what sexual selection is.

    Is it not the theory that tries to explain dimorphism?

    Corneel: My copy of Freeman and Herron’s Evolutionary analysis defines sexual selection as:

    A difference, among members of the same sex, between the average mating success of individuals with a particular phenotype versus individuals with other phenotypes.

    So it is not a theory? It’s a “difference”?!? And the “average” is taken over what time, space, what individuals exactly? And what is “other phenotype”? Isn’t every one his own particular phenotype? “Clear as mud” indeed.

    Corneel: Perhaps now you understand why your mention of puppies, kittens and babies strikes other people as a bit perverse in this particular context?

    The context changed to Universal Beauty. Maybe you’re a bit slow. But this slow???

    0
  19. Nonlin.org to Corneel:
    The context changed to Universal Beauty. Maybe you’re a bit slow. But this slow???

    Really? Because this is how your “point” ends:

    ”At least humans are not sexually attracted to animals” would be the counterargument. Would any human have sex with a peacock? A rabbit?? A cat, bat, fish (well, mermaid)??? Oh no, they would… as erotic animal costumes show. What a shame!

    So, it seems like the context remained being sexual. You are indeed saying that all of that attraction to universal beauty is sexual. That means that the one who’s slow is you. You don’t even remember what you write, which is also evident in your “responses” to many other comments.

    +1
  20. Nonlin.org: The context changed to Universal Beauty. Maybe you’re a bit slow. But this slow???

    Let’s not forget the title of that monstrosity:

    4. There is no sexual selection distinct from ‘Attraction to Universal Beauty’.

    Seems like the context remained sexual attraction from the very title to the very end of that “point.”

    You’ve portrayed yourself as depraved, and then you tried to project your depravity on those who pointed it out. For shame indeed.

    +1
  21. Nonlin.org Allan Miller: What does ID forecast?

    Nonlin: That life is exquisitely designed. That we can learn from God (and His designs) and apply what we learn to our own designs. And every single day we learn something new about medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, math…, this forecast is proven. Again and again and again…

    I nominate this comment for the most Orwellian comment ever to be posted at TSZ.

    Nonlin has demonstrated again and again and again that he lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of medicine, biology, physics, chemistry and math. It is clear that his blind commitment to ID creationism is to blame for this.

    +2
  22. Nonlin.org: Is it not the theory that tries to explain dimorphism?

    I appreciate this is a bit difficult for proponents of ID creationism, but real scientific theories do not just state that they explain something; They actually include an actual explanation. I realize this may be a bit of an eye-opener.

    Nonlin.org: So it is not a theory? It’s a “difference”?!?

    There you go. Very good. You’ve just discovered the mechanism which the theory proposes will result in, for example, pronounced sexual ornaments.

    Nonlin.org: And the “average” is taken over what time, space, what individuals exactly? And what is “other phenotype”? Isn’t every one his own particular phenotype?

    Don’t panic! Now it is important to focus, Nonlin. If you study the case of the widowbirds, you will see that the relevant phenotype is tail length in male birds, and that there are differences between individuals. It turns out that female widowbirds have a preference for the males that have the longer tails and this may very well explain why the males of this species have conspicuously long ornamental tails. This argument is valid at every time, in every space where female widowbirds have to choose suitable mates among the available males.

    If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask them. I can post pictures, if that helps.

    +2
  23. CharlieM: What I was pointing out was not that there is no intraspecific variation. It was that within species there is no extraordinary range of variation.

    And also that “this does not hold for humans”. Is there an extraordinary range of variation within humans? I might agree there is, but I will not deny this is anything else than us humans thumping our own chests.

    CharlieM: What attracted Mrs Trump living in Florida to her mate? Or Mrs Ecclestone living in Switzerland? What were the reasons why Mrs Muhammad living a strict Muslim life in Pakistan became the mate of Mr Muhammad? What about Mr John from the U.K., how did he select his partner?

    I don’t know. Neither do you.

    CharlieM: What attracted Mrs Widowbird living in South Africa to her mate? What about Mrs Widowbird living in Angola, how did she choose her mate? Or their cousin, goodness knows how many times removed, Mrs Widowbird living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, how did she choose her mate?

    I don’t know. Neither do you.

    You haven’t done anything but make an appeal to my human chauvinism. No need; I think we humans are hot stuff too! But this is a subjective judgement. It’s MY judgement. I will not pretend that humans are something millions of year of evolution have been aiming at.

    0
  24. Corneel:
    CharlieM: What I was pointing out was not that there is no intraspecific variation. It was that within species there is no extraordinary range of variation.

    Corneel: And also that “this does not hold for humans”. Is there an extraordinary range of variation within humans? I might agree there is, but I will not deny this is anything else than us humans thumping our own chests.

    It is an undeniable fact that humans choose mates and procreate for a great variety of reasons. One important factor which distinguishes human procreation from animal procreation is foresight. Animals may not be aware of it but the whole point of them mating is to produce offspring.

    CharlieM: What attracted Mrs Trump living in Florida to her mate? Or Mrs Ecclestone living in Switzerland? What were the reasons why Mrs Muhammad living a strict Muslim life in Pakistan became the mate of Mr Muhammad? What about Mr John from the U.K., how did he select his partner?

    I don’t know. Neither do you.

    Well I do know that in some of these cases it wasn’t due to any recognisable physical secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. Another striking distinguishing feature of humans is the way in which sexual practices are disconnected from procreation.

    CharlieM: What attracted Mrs Widowbird living in South Africa to her mate? What about Mrs Widowbird living in Angola, how did she choose her mate? Or their cousin, goodness knows how many times removed, Mrs Widowbird living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, how did she choose her mate?

    Corneel: I don’t know. Neither do you.

    But I do know that at a certain time of year these birds get irresistible urges and physical appearance plays a large part in how they satisfy these urges.

    It is interesting to compare the mating activity of widowbirds to that of mallards. Female mallards don’t have the same privileges that female widowbirds do. They are basically gang raped.

    Corneel: You haven’t done anything but make an appeal to my human chauvinism. No need; I think we humans are hot stuff too! But this is a subjective judgement. It’s MY judgement. I will not pretend that humans are something millions of year of evolution have been aiming at.

    Neither do I think that humans are what evolution has been aiming at. Present humanity is but a transitory stage during the ongoing process of evolution. We are far from being at the summit of evolutionary potential.

    0
  25. CharlieM: Another striking distinguishing feature of humans is the way in which sexual practices are disconnected from procreation.

    Really? Pan paniscus?

    0
  26. Not having any line of attack, some resort to making up controversies that aren’t there. As if that’ll save “sexual selection”.

    Corneel,

    Huh? What heavy stuff are you smoking ?

    Corneel: I appreciate this is a bit difficult for proponents of ID creationism, but real scientific theories do not just state that they explain something; They actually include an actual explanation.

    So “sexual selection” is NOT trying to explain dimorphism?!? I thought it did (tried and failed that is). Then what’s its purpose?

    Corneel: You’ve just discovered the mechanism which the theory proposes will result in, for example, pronounced sexual ornaments.

    A difference is a mechanism?!? Something wrong with you, buddy? Is that heavy stuff again?

    Corneel: If you study the case of the widowbirds,…

    Are you aware you’re not answering the clarifying questions I asked? Are you at all aware? How’s that hangover going?

    Corneel: If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask them.

    I do, as you see. But what good are they if you don’t answer them?

    0
  27. CharlieM: Corneel: You haven’t done anything but make an appeal to my human chauvinism. No need; I think we humans are hot stuff too! But this is a subjective judgement. It’s MY judgement. I will not pretend that humans are something millions of year of evolution have been aiming at.

    Neither do I think that humans are what evolution has been aiming at. Present humanity is but a transitory stage during the ongoing process of evolution. We are far from being at the summit of evolutionary potential.

    Poet zombies.

    0
  28. CharlieM: It is an undeniable fact that humans choose mates and procreate for a great variety of reasons.

    Really? What feedback do you base this claim (vague as it is) on, other than “everyone else is like me”?

    0
  29. CharlieM: But I do know that at a certain time of year these birds get irresistible urges and physical appearance plays a large part in how they satisfy these urges.

    Really? Irresistible urges? How do you know this?

    +1
  30. Nonlin.org: Not having any line of attack, some resort to making up controversies that aren’t there. As if that’ll save “sexual selection”.

    Irony of the year award?

    Nonlin, you have nothing but a convoluted mess. You don’t even remember what you said, and how you said it. You don’t remember your own contexts.

    You’re the one who has nothing against sexual selection, except in your imagination. The kindest summary of your OP would be “there’s sexual selection, but it’s limited to the pursuit of universal beauty, therefore doesn’t go in a random direction, therefore it doesn’t count as evolution.”

    However, there’s no such thing as universal beauty, and there’s nothing about evolution that requires it to go into random directions. Thus, even if there was such a thing as universal beauty, and then there was such a thing as a pursuit for universal beauty, it would still be sexual selection, and it would still have evolutionary consequences.

    Sorry, but your mistaken notions don’t rule reality. Evolution happens whether you understand what the words used to describe it mean or not. Hell, it happens whether scientific theories and hypotheses about how it happens are right or not.

    +1
  31. Nonlin.org,

    Me: The topic was Darwin’s particular understanding of heredity – “gemmules and blending” – which has now been superseded by the science of genetics.

    Nonlin: No. The topic is “sexual selection”. First link is to a dude that wrote something quite recently.

    The topic of the thread might be that, but the topic to which the comment you are referring to was responsive was regarding Darwin’s understanding of heredity. You weren’t talking of sexual selection at that point. Exercise your scroll finger; take a peek. I’m sure this subdiscussion is an absolute treat for the onlookers. “You said … no you said…

    Allan Miller: You can only detect them by assuming evolution.

    No. You may think HGT presupposes “evolution”. All I see is code that doesn’t belong according to “evolution”.

    Therefore you can only detect them by assuming evolution. They are incongruities on evolution. But without the clear signal of evolution, there would be nothing to be incongruous in respect of.

    And since you haven’t actually seen the transfer, your assumption is provisionally wrong.

    Haha. Seen any zebras pop into existence lately?

    Allan Miller: Still a ridiculous idea. “Let there be zebras! […]”

    Nonlin: You’re not pointing to anything wrong or discordant.

    No, I’m pointing to something stupid.

    Think of the car analogy. It works pretty much the same way.

    Zebras work like cars? They’re developed like cars? What? Next time someone says ID isn’t an argument from analogy, I’ll point them over here.

    What I want to know is: why would “proteins not be variable in the minutest degree” on the account of “evolution”?!?

    I was lampooning the Creationist “Islands of Function” argument, but you’re too dumb to realise.

    Allan Miller: It’s not that kind of code. Saying it again don’t make it so! I spent my working life as a ‘coder’, and never once came up with an encoding – still less one involving interacting moving parts on the molecular scale.

    Nonlin: It’s executable code.

    Nope.

    Allan Miller: I thought you had a downer on Affirming the Consequent?

    Nonlin: “Plenty of examples” would be “Affirming the Consequent” were it not for “NOT ONE contrary example”. Get your logic straight. IOW, “if and ONLY if” is not “Affirming the Consequent”.

    One does not have to provide the exception. You are simply declaring that there is none.

    Allan Miller: So you think if it were bigger evolution would be on a surer footing, if you think its actual size an issue.

    Nonlin: Who’s “it” and “its”?

    The thing we were talking about.

    Allan Miller: This is hopelessly confused. The difference between human and monkey does not need to fit anywhere.

    Nonlin: You were confused from before. DNA1 makes a human. DNA2 makes a monkey. Difference must yield difference. (DNA1-DNA2) makes (human-monkey).

    It still doesn’t need to fit anywhere.

    Allan Miller: Selection increases the frequency of the trait, represented by the genes involved in the differential, wherever they reside.

    Nonlin: Self(!) selection. So humans can fly as they always dreamed if they just self select properly?!?

    How did ‘self’ arrive in this discussion?

    Allan Miller: What does ID forecast?

    Nonlin: That life is exquisitely designed. That we can learn from God (and His designs) and apply what we learn to our own designs. And every single day we learn something new about medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, math…, this forecast is proven. Again and again and again…

    That we will never ever understand the universe in full.

    That design is always top-down and never bottom-up (loosers still smash their feeble brains against this rock). That there will NEVER be a machine “singularity”.

    In fact, the single most important idea that drives science is that the universe is rational. This only comes from the belief in a superior intelligence.

    Well, this is all damned useful stuff. There should be a journal where they put all the latest ID ‘forecasts’. If they are of this quality, it’ll be a goldmine.

    Allan Miller: My fitness is 3. But it’s not about individuals. The relative performance of two alleles is the differential in the mean fitness of carriers and that of non-carriers. There must be such a differential, even if its value is zero. It has to be something or nothing; I can’t think of any other possibilities.

    Nonlin: It’s got to be the individual because each individual gets “selected”.

    It’s still not about the individual.

    So if your fitness is 3, then show your work.

    What, you want a picture of my dick?

    Allan Miller: Not if you understood the statement it doesn’t.

    Nonlin What am I missing?

    That selection only operates on a genotype in those lives in which it has a phenotypic expression.

    Allan Miller: So he [Mendel] didn’t disprove anything in regard to it [selection], did he?

    Nonlin His results do that for him.

    What, all of ’em? You might want to handwave a little less vigorously; you’ll have someone’s eye out.

    +1
  32. Allan Miller: The topic of the thread might be that, but the topic to which the comment you are referring to was responsive was regarding Darwin’s understanding of heredity.

    You scroll and see: no one cares about his stupid gemmules. The end.

    Allan Miller: No. You may think HGT presupposes “evolution”. All I see is code that doesn’t belong according to “evolution”.

    Therefore you can only detect them by assuming evolution. They are incongruities on evolution. But without the clear signal of evolution, there would be nothing to be incongruous in respect of.

    Such a stupid thing to say. Like “only with the clear signal of humors, we see blood letting doesn’t help the patient”.

    Allan Miller: Allan Miller: Still a ridiculous idea. “Let there be zebras! […]”

    Nonlin: You’re not pointing to anything wrong or discordant.

    No, I’m pointing to something stupid.

    Your opinion is worthless.

    Allan Miller: Zebras work like cars? They’re developed like cars?

    Why would they need to work like cars? Such a stupid question! But yes, they are developed like cars. They are Intelligently Designed.

    Allan Miller: I was lampooning the Creationist “Islands of Function” argument, but you’re too dumb to realise.

    I see you’re too dumb to realise you’re talking to someone else. Perhaps that’s why you’re not making any sense. You don’t even know whose position to attack.

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: It’s executable code.

    Nope.

    You’re in denial. Who cares?

    Allan Miller: Allan Miller: I thought you had a downer on Affirming the Consequent?

    Nonlin: “Plenty of examples” would be “Affirming the Consequent” were it not for “NOT ONE contrary example”. Get your logic straight. IOW, “if and ONLY if” is not “Affirming the Consequent”.

    One does not have to provide the exception. You are simply declaring that there is none.

    You’re not making any sense. Again.

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: Who’s “it” and “its”?

    The thing we were talking about.

    Right. But do you know what you’re saying and who you’re talking to?

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: You were confused from before. DNA1 makes a human. DNA2 makes a monkey. Difference must yield difference. (DNA1-DNA2) makes (human-monkey).

    It still doesn’t need to fit anywhere.

    You’re too confused. Go see a doctor.

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: Self(!) selection. So humans can fly as they always dreamed if they just self select properly?!?

    How did ‘self’ arrive in this discussion?

    Ditto.

    Allan Miller: Well, this is all damned useful stuff. There should be a journal where they put all the latest ID ‘forecasts’. If they are of this quality, it’ll be a goldmine.

    You got that right. Now, what does “evolution” forecast?

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: It’s got to be the individual because each individual gets “selected”.

    It’s still not about the individual.

    You’re just not making sense.

    Allan Miller: So if your fitness is 3, then show your work.

    What, you want a picture of my dick?

    Your dick, your brain, what’s the difference? A very dumb reply expected from a confused guy caught with his pants down in public.

    Meanwhile, your dick-brain confirms to everyone that “fitness” is still a pipe dream. Can anyone help the confused old man with his pants down in public? No takers? Oh well.

    Allan Miller: Allan Miller: Not if you understood the statement it doesn’t.

    Nonlin What am I missing?

    That selection only operates on a genotype in those lives in which it has a phenotypic expression.

    Really? This was about Mendel’s experiments.

    Were I be talking to a sane person, I’d ask: can you prove “selection only operates on a genotype in those lives in which it has a phenotypic expression”?

    Allan Miller: Allan Miller: So he [Mendel] didn’t disprove anything in regard to it [selection], did he?

    Nonlin His results do that for him.

    What, all of ’em?

    Very well. If there’s “selection” in Mendel’s experiments, how come the recessive-dominant ratios were conserved?

    0
  33. Nonlin.org,

    Me: Therefore you can only detect them by assuming evolution. They are incongruities on evolution. But without the clear signal of evolution, there would be nothing to be incongruous in respect of.

    Nonlin: Such a stupid thing to say. Like “only with the clear signal of humors, we see blood letting doesn’t help the patient”.

    This is not responsive to the point. I can see why you like analogies; they allow you to say any old shit.

    No, I’m pointing to something stupid.

    Your opinion is worthless.

    Right back atcha. But you offer it freely enough.

    Allan Miller: Zebras work like cars? They’re developed like cars?

    Nonlin: Why would they need to work like cars? Such a stupid question! But yes, they are developed like cars. They are Intelligently Designed.

    So you say. Can you establish this without resort to analogy?

    Allan Miller: I was lampooning the Creationist “Islands of Function” argument, but you’re too dumb to realise.

    Nonlin: I see you’re too dumb to realise you’re talking to someone else. Perhaps that’s why you’re not making any sense. You don’t even know whose position to attack.

    It was a joke for the hopeful amusement of onlookers familiar with the debate. That it sailed over your head adds to the chuckles.

    Nonlin: It’s executable code.

    Me: Nope.

    Nonlin: You’re in denial. Who cares?

    You do, clearly.

    Allan Miller: One does not have to provide the exception. You are simply declaring that there is none.

    You’re not making any sense. Again.

    That would be your shoddy grasp of logic at work.

    Nonlin: Who’s “it” and “its”?

    Me: The thing we were talking about.

    Nonlin: Right. But do you know what you’re saying and who you’re talking to?

    Yep.

    It still doesn’t need to fit anywhere.

    You’re too confused. Go see a doctor.

    Will a doctor help me see why the difference between two things needs to be put somewhere? 🤔

    Me: How did ‘self’ arrive in this discussion?

    Nonlin: Ditto.

    Mornington Crescent.

    Allan Miller: Well, this is all damned useful stuff. There should be a journal where they put all the latest ID ‘forecasts’. If they are of this quality, it’ll be a goldmine.

    Nonlin: You got that right. Now, what does “evolution” forecast?

    To the same standard? Oh, there’s all this stuff, you see, and it just kind of … evolved. Something something cars. I’m going to publish it in The Big Book of Evolutionary Stuff, and we’ll see how it does against Nonlin’s Compendium of Intelligent Design Forecasts.

    Nonlin: It’s got to be the individual because each individual gets “selected”.

    Me: It’s still not about the individual.

    Nonlin: You’re just not making sense.

    That’s because evolutionary theory is evidently not the subject for you. If you don’t comprehend the principles, you can’t discuss them

    nonlin: So if your fitness is 3, then show your work.

    Allan: What, you want a picture of my dick?

    Nonlin: Your dick, your brain, what’s the difference? A very dumb reply expected from a confused guy caught with his pants down in public.

    No, a hilarious reply for those who understand the standard definitions of fitness – which I’d even referenced. My fitness, the way I was using it, is the number of my kids. For a larger collection, when considering the longer term performance of an allele, you take the mean fitness of carriers vs non-carriers. Doing similar in, say, a double-blind trial of a medication (measuring something in two groups with and without), is accepted without too much toddleresque spoon-avoidance. But evolution is a special arena in which simple principles (100%!) suddenly become impossibly hard.

    Allan Miller: Allan Miller: Not if you understood the statement it doesn’t.

    Nonlin What am I missing?

    Me: That selection only operates on a genotype in those lives in which it has a phenotypic expression.

    Nonlin: Really? This was about Mendel’s experiments.

    Ah, more ‘I-said-you-said’. Quality stuff. If you’d scroll upwards, you’d see that this was in relation to my statements on sexual selection. I pointed out that gender-specific genes could only be even hypothetically selected in lives in which they achieve phenotypic expression, in the same way as a recessive character. Because you only have two nails in this area – ‘Darwin!!!’ and ‘Mendel!!!!’ you constantly flip from pounding the one to the other.

    Were I be talking to a sane person, I’d ask: can you prove “selection only operates on a genotype in those lives in which it has a phenotypic expression”?

    It seems a strange thing to dispute. If selection operates, it can only act on genotype via phenotype, since genotype requires molecular biological or genetic techniques to establish.

    Allan Miller: So he [Mendel] didn’t disprove anything in regard to it [selection], did he?

    Nonlin His results do that for him.

    Me: What, all of ’em?

    Nonlin: Very well. If there’s “selection” in Mendel’s experiments, how come the recessive-dominant ratios were conserved?

    There isn’t selection in Mendel’s experiments. So he neither proved nor disproved it. I don’t really know what you think selection is, but it’s clearly not what everyone else understands by the term. Do you think selection is the only way things can be inherited or something?

    +1
  34. CharlieM: One important factor which distinguishes human procreation from animal procreation is foresight.

    Yet you and I still went ahead and had children 😀

    CharlieM: Well I do know that in some of these cases it wasn’t due to any recognisable physical secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex.

    Unless you are talking about forced marriage, I strongly doubt this is the case.

    CharlieM: Another striking distinguishing feature of humans is the way in which sexual practices are disconnected from procreation.

    I am pretty sure you can have your pets sterilized. Just go visit your vet.

    CharlieM: It is interesting to compare the mating activity of widowbirds to that of mallards. Female mallards don’t have the same privileges that female widowbirds do. They are basically gang raped.

    Really? Then why do male mallards have ornamental colours, I wonder? Pretty sure “gang rapes” are incidental, just like in humans.

    CharlieM: Neither do I think that humans are what evolution has been aiming at. Present humanity is but a transitory stage during the ongoing process of evolution.

    But other species are not, or have not progressed as far, right?

    0
  35. Nonlin.org: So “sexual selection” is NOT trying to explain dimorphism?!?

    This is getting tedious, Nonlin. Are you misunderstanding on purpose? It looks like you just misunderstand on purpose.

    Nonlin.org: A difference is a mechanism?!?

    Oh, for Pete’s sake. Do you know how to tie your shoelaces? Do you know what you like on your sandwich? Do you know anything?!? You must know something!

    Nonlin.org: Are you aware you’re not answering the clarifying questions I asked?

    We went over all that stuff in the thread to your “natural selection” OP. I’ll be damned if I rehash all that. Go back and read over there, if you please. So far I am not seeing a lot of this “every single day we learn something new” stuff.

    Nonlin.org: But what good are they if you don’t answer them?

    What good are answers if you don’t listen to them?

    +1
  36. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: Another striking distinguishing feature of humans is the way in which sexual practices are disconnected from procreation.

    Alan Fox: Really? Pan paniscus?

    I was distinguishing between humans and animals in general. It is interesting that you chose as your example a species that is about as close to humans as any animal can be. It is understandable that the more closely related an animal species is to humans the closer their respective behaviours will be.

    But the human sex industry is unique. In which other species do individuals gain long term benefit from encouraging and manipulating the sexual behaviour of fellow members without themselves getting involved?

    Speaking of Pan paniscus, it is thought that humans are more generally Neotenic than other primates, also bonobos are considered to be more generally neotonic than their closest relatives.

    Of course it could be argued that other primates have aged prematurely. Higher consciousness cannot be rushed. It takes time to develop physical bodies that are suitably equipped to display this higher consciousness. Likewise fish and amphibians can be thought of as having reached their adult stages even more prematurely than mammals and birds. Physically the former have remained at an earlier stage of development. Mammals and birds have passed through and evolved beyond an aquatic stage of their evolution.

    This may warrant a separate thread on animal evolution in general.

    0
  37. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: It is an undeniable fact that humans choose mates and procreate for a great variety of reasons.

    Alan Fox: Really? What feedback do you base this claim (vague as it is) on, other than “everyone else is like me”?

    Personal experience among other things.

    Someone I know has just got married to a woman who lived in Pakistan because his father had returned there and chosen her to be his bride. A few of my friends decided to get married because their girlfriends had become pregnant by accident. My wife and myself had two children on purpose, We did try for another but we had left it a bit late.

    Some people choose same sex partners, some decide against having children, some are attracted by looks others by power or money. Some women have babies for other couples.

    All of this seems obvious to me, but obviously not to you.

    0
  38. Alan Fox: CharlieM: But I do know that at a certain time of year these birds get irresistible urges and physical appearance plays a large part in how they satisfy these urges.

    Really? Irresistible urges? How do you know this?

    For starters, from observation. Have you ever sat and watched birds at this time of the year. I can see the wood pigeons out of my window and we go for frequent walks where we can see mallards cavorting about.

    Ducks don’t seem to practice much restraint on the <a href="canals of Venice
    “The Duck Wars : Mating season is a brutal time for the female birds, who often are injured or die. Residents along the canals have created a sanctuary.”

    They do a very good impression of acting on their impulses.

    0
  39. Alan Fox:
    Corneel: You haven’t done anything but make an appeal to my human chauvinism.

    Alan Fox: Think on this Charlie.

    I can’t do much about Corneel’s chauvinism.

    0
  40. Corneel:

    CharlieM: One important factor which distinguishes human procreation from animal procreation is foresight.

    Yet you and I still went ahead and had children

    What can I say, masochistic tendencies. 🙂

    CharlieM: Well I do know that in some of these cases it wasn’t due to any recognisable physical secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex.

    Corneel: Unless you are talking about forced marriage, I strongly doubt this is the case.

    I’m not sure that Elton John was forced into it.

    CharlieM: Another striking distinguishing feature of humans is the way in which sexual practices are disconnected from procreation.

    Corneel: I am pretty sure you can have your pets sterilized. Just go visit your vet.

    And it’s a good job that they can’t reciprocate.

    CharlieM: It is interesting to compare the mating activity of widowbirds to that of mallards. Female mallards don’t have the same privileges that female widowbirds do. They are basically gang raped.

    Corneel: Really? Then why do male mallards have ornamental colours, I wonder? Pretty sure “gang rapes” are incidental, just like in humans.

    As far as I’m aware it’s more to do with the timing of the males acquiring their colourful plumage that gives them mating advantage.

    According to Richard Prum
    “Forced copulations are “pervasively common in many species of ducks,”

    CharlieM: Neither do I think that humans are what evolution has been aiming at. Present humanity is but a transitory stage during the ongoing process of evolution.

    But other species are not, or have not progressed as far, right?

    They haven’t acquired such individual creativity. Other animals may show a higher wisdom than that of humans but any superiority other species posses lies in the creativity of them as a group. A wisdom shared by the group.

    +1
  41. CharlieM: They do a very good impression of acting on their impulses.

    The poet in you escapes again. Human sexual urges are hormonal. As are those in other species.

    0
  42. Alan Fox: CharlieM: They do a very good impression of acting on their impulses.

    The poet in you escapes again. Human sexual urges are hormonal. As are those in other species.

    Yes, and celibates through strength of will can resist these hormonal urges. Animals show no signs of doing so. Also some people engage in sex just to please a partner or to make money even if they don’t have the urge.

    0
  43. CharlieM: Yes, and celibates through strength of will can resist these hormonal urges.

    Where do you find this information?

    0
  44. CharlieM: Also some people engage in sex just to please a partner or to make money even if they don’t have the urge.

    Are you speaking from personal experience here? Humans lie a lot to third parties and sometimes to themselves.

    Bear in mind I’m not necessarily disagreeing with some of your claims, merely your confidence in asserting them.

    0
  45. Allan Miller: This is not responsive to the point.

    It is. The only way we can know “evolution” to be false for sure is to look for observations incompatible with your “theory”. HGT (so called) is one of those observations.

    Allan Miller: Can you establish this without resort to analogy?

    I did. Repeatedly.

    Allan Miller: It was a joke for the hopeful amusement of onlookers familiar with the debate.

    Not my debate. That you don’t know whom you’re debating is indeed hilarious.

    Allan Miller: Nonlin: It’s executable code.

    Me: Nope.

    Nonlin: You’re in denial. Who cares?

    You do, clearly.

    Look here: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393/
    Code:
    If new protein
    If start codon
    Start making protein
    Else …
    Else…
    So on and so forth.

    Everyone knows DNA is code: https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code

    Allan Miller: Will a doctor help me see why the difference between two things needs to be put somewhere?

    Yes.

    Allan Miller: That’s because evolutionary theory is evidently not the subject for you. If you don’t comprehend the principles, you can’t discuss them

    Sure, “the principles”. “Evolution” is sooo difficult to “comprehend”. Oh, wait. It’s just me.

    Allan Miller: No, a hilarious reply for those who understand the standard definitions of fitness – which I’d even referenced. My fitness, the way I was using it, is the number of my kids.

    What a coincidence! I too, find your replies hilarious. For entirely different reasons.

    Too bad you have it backwards in time. You don’t have kids and then you’re “fit”. So called “fitness” must come first. Because, how would you be “selected”? And what if you have one more kid? That’ll make you literally unfit. And even if you had vasectomy, what about the next guy?

    Allan Miller: But evolution is a special arena in which simple principles (100%!) suddenly become impossibly hard.

    You mean time travel?

    Allan Miller: I pointed out that gender-specific genes could only be even hypothetically selected in lives in which they achieve phenotypic expression, in the same way as a recessive character.

    “Selection” was not ‘hypothetical’ before. That was a problem.

    Allan Miller: It seems a strange thing to dispute. If selection operates

    Big “If” (that was the dispute). But we know “selection” cannot operate because there’s no “fitness” until after you already had your kids. You admitted that much.

    Allan Miller: Do you think selection is the only way things can be inherited or something?

    Of course there’s no “natural selection” whatsoever. As Darwin implied by misusing breeding to illustrate his myth.

    Corneel: Philistine!

    Haha. Not the only option though.

    Corneel: This is getting tedious, Nonlin.

    See? This kind of non answers won’t help.

    Corneel: Oh, for Pete’s sake.

    Ditto.

    Corneel: We went over all that stuff in the thread to your “natural selection” OP. I’ll be damned if I rehash all that.

    We dissected your definition of “sexual selection”?!? Can you at list link?

    Corneel: What good are answers if you don’t listen to them?

    Non answers are NOT answers.

    Anyway, this essay is about sexual selection and its impossible task of modeling organisms. I offered some clues. And you should attack those if you think they’re weak. Your definition apparently doesn’t explain anything, much less provide valid counterarguments.

    CharlieM: We’re more than just poets. Here I am singing while Corneel struts his stuff in drag.

    Good one too.

    CharlieM: They haven’t acquired such individual creativity. Other animals may show a higher wisdom than that of humans but any superiority other species posses lies in the creativity of them as a group. A wisdom shared by the group.

    Oh no, another one. Run for your lives!

    0
  46. @ nonlin

    Fished your comment out of moderation. It ended up there because it exceeded the preset limit of 20 links in a comment. You might consider splitting a comment into two or more shorter ones.

    0

Leave a Reply

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