Natural Selection (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

irishmichael -> Natural Selection (10/26/2008 2:32:02 AM)

I came across this post while perusing science blogs. What do you think of it?

Why Natural Selection is Not Random

quote:

“I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random”, said Miller when reached for an interview.

Miller sees natural selection as one of the essential paths to complex life forms. Such a mechanism gives species the ability to filter out what doesn’t work and leave what does. Professor Miller echoes this notion, saying “[n]atural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered.” Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (10/26/2008 11:41:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishmichael
I came across this post while perusing science blogs. What do you think of it?

Why Natural Selection is Not Random

quote:

“I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random”, said Miller when reached for an interview.



Natural selection is a product of selective pressures. Those selective pressures are random in that they do not try to produce anything specific (ie: original appendages, limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA that codes for them). Hence, natural selection is random. It doesn't try to produce anything with an end goal in mind, it simply selects out whatever happens not to survive (and whatever happens to survive is what it happened to select, which is a tautology). Natural selection doesn't look at the organism and say, "if I make selective pressures require an adaptation to cold weather, it will increase the probability of adding component A to the organism, and component A will work well with the existing components. If I make selective pressures require an adaption to hot weather, it will kill the organism. Hence, I will make selective pressures require an adaption to cold weather." Selective pressures are random. They do not have any end goal in mind and they do not care what the organism produces or how well it survives and they do not care to act in such a way that will make the organism produce interdependent systems that function together. It's like tossing an unbiased coin, the weather could be hot, it could be cold, but the temperature patterns do not purposely adjust themselves to produce anything specific (ie: limbs, etc..). Natural selection is random in that it has no purpose, just like tossing an unbiased coin, anything that is produced is done on accident. How can anyone say that natural selection is not random, what is it, purposeful? Does it try to produce anything specific with intent? Does natural selection ponder, "well, I want to produce limbs, what combination of selective pressures can do this." No, it just randomly does whatever it happens to do with no such intent in mind.

Also note, the random nature of natural selection is independent of what you call it. You can call it random selection, natural selection, oooga booga, whatever, the fact that you decide to label it natural selection does not make the process being described any less random.



Jhud -> RE: Natural Selection (10/26/2008 2:19:03 PM)

Just out of curiousity, did you 'come across it', or write it?



drmark -> RE: Natural Selection (10/27/2008 11:10:12 AM)

Please define "not random".



catfighter -> RE: Natural Selection (10/27/2008 1:56:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Please define "not random".


Take the definitions of random:
"lacking any definite plan or order or purpose;
governed by or depending on chance"

and put a "not" in front of them.



drmark -> RE: Natural Selection (10/27/2008 2:22:19 PM)

So how does an inanimate, non-sentient, meaningless process like natural selection possess a definite plan, order, or purpose?



RobertByers -> RE: Natural Selection (10/27/2008 8:04:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishmichael

I came across this post while perusing science blogs. What do you think of it?

Why Natural Selection is Not Random

quote:

“I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random”, said Miller when reached for an interview.

Miller sees natural selection as one of the essential paths to complex life forms. Such a mechanism gives species the ability to filter out what doesn’t work and leave what does. Professor Miller echoes this notion, saying “[n]atural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered.” Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.



What these evolutionists are trying to say, incompetently as usual, is that natural selection is selecting ideed. It has a purpose in reaction to pressures. No it does not have a purpose from a thought out agenda.
It is a line of reasoning that selection pressures can be operating and have been in the world.
As to the evidence they have been WELL i guess they would say look around you. The same argument creationists say for God.
So both concepts are based on faith.
Of coarse it seems more intelligent to see intelligence behind complicated things that are beyond non thinking cause and effect.
It seems more intelligent because it is.



robto -> RE: Natural Selection (10/28/2008 10:59:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertByers

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishmichael

I came across this post while perusing science blogs. What do you think of it?

Why Natural Selection is Not Random

quote:

“I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random”, said Miller when reached for an interview.

Miller sees natural selection as one of the essential paths to complex life forms. Such a mechanism gives species the ability to filter out what doesn’t work and leave what does. Professor Miller echoes this notion, saying “[n]atural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered.” Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly.



What these evolutionists are trying to say, incompetently as usual, is that natural selection is selecting ideed. It has a purpose in reaction to pressures. No it does not have a purpose from a thought out agenda.
It is a line of reasoning that selection pressures can be operating and have been in the world.
As to the evidence they have been WELL i guess they would say look around you. The same argument creationists say for God.
So both concepts are based on faith.

It gets really annoying to keep hearing "both are based on faith". In fact, one is based on EVIDENCE and the other is not.

Does it take "faith" to believe that gravity will always hold you down? Do you tie yourself to the bed at night in case gravity reverses itself during the night and flings you out of the bed? Is going to bed without tying yourself down an act of faith? No - you have evidence, from long experience with gravity, that nothing drastic will happen during the night. You can't logically PROVE that gravity will continue to behave in the same way it has in the past - past returns are no guarantee of future earnings. (No more can anyone prove evolution, or special relativity, is correct.) But it's just common sense to base your actions on what you know from long testing (intentional or not) to be true. That's not "faith" - it's knowledge.

Evolution has similarly undergone a long period of testing - so much so that (like special relativity) it can be considered knowledge. Science, as someone said, is just organized common sense.

quote:


Of coarse it seems more intelligent to see intelligence behind complicated things that are beyond non thinking cause and effect.
It seems more intelligent because it is.


Usually the simpler explanation is to be preferred. So an explanation based on chemical and biological principles that we already know to be true is preferred to one that requires the magical intervention of an invisible person.



Jhud -> RE: Natural Selection (10/28/2008 12:18:52 PM)

quote:

It gets really annoying to keep hearing "both are based on faith". In fact, one is based on EVIDENCE and the other is not.

Does it take "faith" to believe that gravity will always hold you down? Do you tie yourself to the bed at night in case gravity reverses itself during the night and flings you out of the bed? Is going to bed without tying yourself down an act of faith? No - you have evidence, from long experience with gravity, that nothing drastic will happen during the night. You can't logically PROVE that gravity will continue to behave in the same way it has in the past - past returns are no guarantee of future earnings. (No more can anyone prove evolution, or special relativity, is correct.) But it's just common sense to base your actions on what you know from long testing (intentional or not) to be true. That's not "faith" - it's knowledge.

Evolution has similarly undergone a long period of testing - so much so that (like special relativity) it can be considered knowledge. Science, as someone said, is just organized common sense.


I think it is important to note that we directly experience gravity; unlike evolution, which is really a description of a collection of phenomena thought to produce a particular effect in very unique circumstances, gravity is a directly observable universal phenomena which is mathematically describable.

And in one sense we do have 'faith' concerning gravity's ongoing effects; it is the faith all science is based on, namely that there are universal constant laws and principles that govern our universe, and that these principles can be reliably observbed, described, and tested. This is essentially an assumption; there is no way to prove this belief, we can only say that it has been generally reliable.

So the two ideas are in reality quite different, and it is right to consider the accuracy of evolutions description in terms of life's development.

quote:

Usually the simpler explanation is to be preferred. So an explanation based on chemical and biological principles that we already know to be true is preferred to one that requires the magical intervention of an invisible person.


But what we 'know to be true' regarding chemical principles is that they do not form information systems and machinery absent the direction of intelligence; so in a sense I agree, we should go where the evidence actually leads.



drmark -> RE: Natural Selection (10/28/2008 1:02:44 PM)

quote:

It gets really annoying to keep hearing "both are based on faith". In fact, one is based on EVIDENCE and the other is not.
What's even more annoying is to keep hearing that evolution is based on evidence. NO, IT IS NOT! GTE is based on the interpretations, preconceived assumptions, and naturalistic worldviews of certain so-called scientists toward the evidence. Indeed, the evidence totally fails to support random, unguided natural processes as the cause for the informational complexity required to "evolve" anything! Faith belongs squarely in the evolutionists' court.



Consecrated2God -> RE: Natural Selection (10/28/2008 4:28:13 PM)

Let's not take this too far off topic, folks.

This thread is about natural selection.

Direct any rabbit trails to the appropriate thread.

Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator

Do not reply to this warning in the community or send me PM's about it. If you have questions or comments, please e-mail community@salemwebnetwork.com.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (11/9/2008 12:41:43 PM)

An update on this discussion can be found here
http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/it-still-isnt-random/?referer=sphere_related_content/

Both Jhud and I have responded.



alex123 -> RE: Natural Selection (11/29/2008 10:39:19 AM)

quote:


quote:

It gets really annoying to keep hearing "both are based on faith". In fact, one is based on EVIDENCE and the other is not.
What's even more annoying is to keep hearing that evolution is based on evidence. NO, IT IS NOT! GTE is based on the interpretations, preconceived assumptions, and naturalistic worldviews of certain so-called scientists toward the evidence. Indeed, the evidence totally fails to support random, unguided natural processes as the cause for the informational complexity required to "evolve" anything! Faith belongs squarely in the evolutionists' court.

Not so. The 'descent with modification' model of evolution is based on a huge mass of convergent evidence - a long history of sedimentary geology, datable to hundreds of millions of years by a variety of methods; a fossil record showing the appearance and disappearance of organisms within ecological assemblages over time; nested genetic and homologous relationships between species with ample evidence of divergence of inherited characteristiscs over time; and a mass of expertimental and observational evidence for mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for the inhertance of modification. And the interesting thing is that the further you go the less evidence there is for any form of guidance in evolution and therefore the less need there is to invoke any mechanism of direction or self-organisation. Faith is kicked firmly back to the belief systems of religion.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/7/2008 1:59:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Not so. The 'descent with modification' model of evolution is based on a huge mass of convergent evidence - a long history of sedimentary geology, datable to hundreds of millions of years by a variety of methods; a fossil record showing the appearance and disappearance of organisms within ecological assemblages over time; nested genetic and homologous relationships between species with ample evidence of divergence of inherited characteristiscs over time; and a mass of expertimental and observational evidence for mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for the inhertance of modification.


Do you want to discuss any of these alleged evidences in particular?

quote:


And the interesting thing is that the further you go the less evidence there is for any form of guidance in evolution and therefore the less need there is to invoke any mechanism of direction or self-organisation. Faith is kicked firmly back to the belief systems of religion.


Oh yes, just because you assert something it must be true.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/7/2008 2:22:32 AM)

I brought up some threads in response to some of your alleged evidences. If you would like to discuss the matter further, I highly suggest you read those threads first.



rising_warrior -> RE: Natural Selection (12/7/2008 12:18:37 PM)

Natural Selection is more of a delusion of what is... The father of biology called it a mathematical chance, that a creature will survive or die, have this trait or that trait. No, the beneficial traits are not the only ones to be passed on. There is no mechanism, just like a law has no mechanism that makes it do what it is supposed to due. What does? When God's name is translated it comes out "the one who is, and the one that is" Now you can ask the question.... "What is God?"


Traits come and go, natural selection has nothing to do with it. An individual who has brown eyes, as does his wife and his parents and her parents, does not mean that their children will have, with absolute certainty brown eyes. Neither can one evolve to the next stage, natural selection has failed to be recorded in the last 6000 years of written history, only in the last few decades has this ever come up.



GHitch -> RE: Natural Selection (12/7/2008 1:43:26 PM)

NS is just a filter. It doesn't create anything, it just weeds out stuff. Contrary to Darwinism, it doesn't necessarily keep stuff either. There is nothing that stops deleterious mutations from undoing neutral and/or good ones.

Mutations are generally random but can have certain predictive aspects under certain environments - like radiation levels, toxicity, etc..



GHitch -> RE: Natural Selection (12/7/2008 2:05:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Not so. The 'descent with modification' model of evolution is based on a huge mass of convergent evidence - a long history of sedimentary geology, datable to hundreds of millions of years by a variety of methods; a fossil record showing the appearance and disappearance of organisms within ecological assemblages over time; nested genetic and homologous relationships between species with ample evidence of divergence of inherited characteristiscs over time; and a mass of expertimental and observational evidence for mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for the inhertance of modification.
No one contends descent with modification, not even the hard line YEC. But macro-evo is not mere descent with small modifications. It is descent with humongous modifications. Modifications that are statistically impossible and for which there is zero evidence. No observational, no experimental. Just wild extrapolations of basic descent with mod. The only observations and experimental data are in support of micro evo. That you still need to figure out.

quote:

And the interesting thing is that the further you go the less evidence there is for any form of guidance in evolution and therefore the less need there is to invoke any mechanism of direction or self-organisation. Faith is kicked firmly back to the belief systems of religion.
That is one titanic statement of blind faith, destined to sink deep into the icy waters of cold reality. You should know better than to make such sweeping overstatements of faith in the Darwinist Catechism.

Quite the contrary! All of the evidence, the deeper you go, points to design and things that cannot be the result of blind forces.
You've been shown this already and you failed pretty miserably at demonstrating the contrary, and yet still cling to bankrupt materialist scientism?! My my my! [;)]

Who do you actually get this stuff from? Dawkins? Moran, PZ Myers? Provine? Miller's bio text books? Precious little fact to be picked there or in that camp!

Your statement on self-organization is also wrong. Darwinism preaches it. Darwinism requires it. Without it Darwinism sinks into the mire of confusion.
If you don't think so you're not preaching the party line. So how do you get out if? Define self-organization.



alex123 -> RE: Natural Selection (12/8/2008 5:32:50 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Not so. The 'descent with modification' model of evolution is based on a huge mass of convergent evidence - a long history of sedimentary geology, datable to hundreds of millions of years by a variety of methods; a fossil record showing the appearance and disappearance of organisms within ecological assemblages over time; nested genetic and homologous relationships between species with ample evidence of divergence of inherited characteristics over time; and a mass of experimental and observational evidence for mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for the inheritance of modification.


Do you want to discuss any of these alleged evidences in particular?


Don’t mind.

Most of the earth’s geology is sedimentary in nature. These sedimentary rocks are laid down in a bewildering variety of strata (limestones and chalks, marine and aeolian sandstones, mud- and siltstones, conglomerates) that can be assigned to a similar variety of depositional environments (deep and shallow marine sediments, lagoons, lakes, deserts, etc). Some of these strata (e.g. chalk cliffs) form single continuous sequences hundreds of feet thick, indicating thousands of years of uninterrupted deposition. Interfaces between different sediments indicated extensive changes in sea level.

Various techniques can be used to apply absolute dates to some sediments. Older sediments often contain intrusions of igneous material that can be dated using a variety of techniques (‘daughter’ halides, isotope comparisons, isochrons) which show high degrees of convergence (Greenland pre-Cambrian). Younger sediments can be dated using C14, isotope comparisons, ice-core data and varve data, all of which again show remarkable convergence (Lake Vostok).

Many of these sediments are fossiliferous. Fossils generally have clear associations with particular strata implying that species were associated with particular geological ages. Fossils show that particular morphologies appear in the geological record sequentially at particular times and are broadly associated with increasing levels of morphological sophistication; thus ferns appear before gymnosperms in the fossil record, which in turn appear before flowering plants; similarly fish appear before amphibian, which in turn appear before birds. Moreover assemblages of fossils often show ecological assemblages. For example, corals and other species associated with warm tropical waters are found together; ferns, cycads and other species associated with tropical forests are found together; these two groups are generally not found together.

Morphologically related species from sequential strata often show slight changes in skeletal structure (homologies) suggesting that descendants of earlier species are inheriting small cumulative modifications. Analysis of these sequential changes shows broad divergence of different lineages from earlier common ancestors. Comparisons of the structures of homologous metabolic enzymes and control genes (e.g. Cytochrome C, Pax and Hox gene clusters) show accumulation of neutral mutations that follows the same broad outline of diversification.

Evidence from prokaryotes shows that mutation is capable of generating new function from existing enzymes; similar evidence from higher organisms shows that mutation is an effective method of introducing variation into populations. Evidence from population studies shows that natural selection is an effective mechanism for the preservation of new function leading to diversification and, where reproductive isolation occurs, progressive speciation.

Any questions?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/8/2008 9:03:59 PM)

I addressed most of your initial post in other posts. Did you read them yet? Here are the links.

http://forums.christianity.com/m_2209111/mpage_4/tm.htm
http://forums.christianity.com/m_2825724/mpage_5/tm.htm
http://forums.christianity.com/m_3062242/mpage_9/tm.htm
http://forums.christianity.com/m_2387149/mpage_6/tm.htm

For responses to radiometric dating see
http://forums.christianity.com/m_3235728/mpage_2/key_0/tm.htm



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/8/2008 9:19:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Evidence from prokaryotes shows that mutation is capable of generating new function from existing enzymes; similar evidence from higher organisms shows that mutation is an effective method of introducing variation into populations.


None of which has been able to originate IC and SC systems independent of already existing IC and SC systems (or the DNA that codes for them).


For a thread on the failure of natural selection see
http://forums.christianity.com/m_3430151/mpage_1/tm.htm
(in particular, see post 1).

quote:


Any questions?


Yes, did you copy your response from a text book?



alex123 -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 2:48:09 AM)

quote:

quote:

Any questions?

Yes, did you copy your response from a text book?

Nope, wrote it off the top of my head last night! (I'm quite bright and have had a lot of hands-on experience in bio and geo science - not every evo has to depend on TO for their opinions, you know!)

I'll look at your thread references and see what they say.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 4:11:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
quote:

quote:

Any questions?

Yes, did you copy your response from a text book?

Nope, wrote it off the top of my head last night! (I'm quite bright and have had a lot of hands-on experience in bio and geo science - not every evo has to depend on TO for their opinions, you know!)

I'll look at your thread references and see what they say.


The point is that your opinion sounds too much like a textbook, it sounds too much like you can't think for yourself (and you just go along with the consensus or whatever, ie: so long as the consensus meets your criterion of naturalism/materialism).



alex123 -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 4:15:24 AM)

OK, I have had a quick skim through your references and I am delighted to be able to report that I will not be losing any sleep tonight. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of those threads - I have learned a lot from the intelligent and measured responses of other contributors to your statements.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 4:30:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
OK, I have had a quick skim through your references and I am delighted to be able to report that I will not be losing any sleep tonight. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of those threads - I have learned a lot from the intelligent and measured responses of other contributors to your statements.


Sorry if I was rude, I just don't appreciate you coming over here and accusing us of things like quoting people out of context without substantiation. You could show us a little respect or even give us the benefit of the doubt (or better yet, look up the quotes yourself) before making such accusations.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI