Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Response to Comments: Natural Selection Doesn’t Help

According to evolution the millions and millions of species in the world all arose from a long, long sequence of random events. It began with random events that somehow assembled the first living cell. And these random events continued to produce different kinds of cells, multicellular forms, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and so forth. From a lifeless warm little pond, cheetahs, redwood trees and humans were all created by a long series independent, random events (such as mutations) that just happened to occur for no particular reason. It sounds very much like the Epicureans of old. For as Lucretius explained, not by counsel did the primal germs:

'Stablish themselves, as by keen act of mind,
Each in its proper place; nor did they make,
Forsooth, a compact how each germ should move;

And from those primal germs came all life:

Thus then the new Earth first of all put forth
Grasses and shrubs
, and afterward begat
The mortal generations
, there upsprung-
Innumerable in modes innumerable-
After diverging fashions

[…]

How merited is that adopted name
Of earth- "The Mother!"- since from out the earth
Are all begotten
.

[…]

Wherefore, again, again, how merited
Is that adopted name of Earth- The Mother!-
Since she herself begat the human race,

The human race just happened to arise. For Lucretius from Mother Earth and for evolutionists from mutations. Either way it is a euphemism for blind chance. And as with today’s evolutionary theory, Lucretius’ certainty was not from science, but from religion. Is it not obvious that this faulty and mostly useless world must have arisen on its own:

That in no wise the nature of all things
For us was fashioned by a power divine-
So great the faults it stands encumbered with
.
First, mark all regions which are overarched
By the prodigious reaches of the sky:
One yawning part thereof the mountain-chains
And forests of the beasts do have and hold;
And cliffs, and desert fens, and wastes of sea
(Which sunder afar the beaches of the lands)
Possess it merely; and, again, thereof
Well-nigh two-thirds intolerable heat
And a perpetual fall of frost doth rob
From mortal kind. And what is left to till,
Even that the force of Nature would o'errun
With brambles, did not human force oppose,-
Long wont for livelihood to groan and sweat
Over the two-pronged mattock and to cleave
The soil in twain by pressing on the plough
.

The sentiment is from antiquity, but it is no different than today’s evolutionary thought. It is mythology built on metaphysics.

But evolutionists will complain, for we have left out natural selection. Does it not provide a guiding hand? Evolutionist Joe Felsenstein agrees that biology’s DNA sequences, for example, are unlikely. But so what? He writes:

I can show you how to—regularly and repeatably—get a sequence of events that is extremely improbable. Every time. Just take a coin and toss it 100 times. The resulting sequence of Heads and Tails has a probability of only 1 part in the 100th power of 2. Which is about 1 part in 10-to-the-30th. Wow, that is really improbable. Yet you can do it every time! I guess that shows that people who toss coins are making unreasonable assumptions ...

In other words, biology’s astronomically unlikely designs are not a problem because all designs are unlikely. Strange that all those evolutionary experiments can’t generate good proteins from scratch. Can’t we just throw together a sequence like evolution did?

The problem with this utterly foolish logic is that not all designs work. In fact, the vast majority don’t work. When I say “vast majority” I mean, for all practical purposes, all of them. For a typical protein you would need more than 10^100 (a one followed by one hundred zeros) evolutionary experiments to create it. And no, we don’t find there to be convenient pathways evolution could use to gradually build-up the protein. Natural selection doesn’t help. That’s the case with most designs, biological or otherwise. You don’t magically have gradual pathways consisting of a long, long sequence of ever so slightly different intermediates, all leading to a fantastic final design.

Evolution is a modern-day myth. No better than Zeus up in the sky, throwing down lightning bolts. But today we should know better. At least Lucretius and the Epicureans can claim scientific ignorance. Today’s version of the myth, evolutionary theory, is a religiously-driven mockery of science. The religion is explicit in the evolutionary literature, as is the mockery of science. Religion drives science, and it matters.

45 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter:

    "You don’t magically have gradual pathways consisting of a long, long sequence of ever so slightly different intermediates, all leading to a fantastic final design."
    ===

    There is if you have FAITH!
    ---

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "For Lucretius from Mother Earth and for evolutionists from mutations."
    ===

    And yet he wasn't the only ancient world philosopher to propose this religious dogma. Even long before Greek and Roman philosophers invented this scheme, there were the ancient Egpytians before them who viewed the Nile as the source for all life on earth. Their own version of the prebiotic warm little pond from which all life slimed out of. Then there were the half human half animal representations in their artwork. The religious origins of this dogma are well documented historically.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For a typical protein you would need more than 10^100 (a one followed by one hundred zeros) evolutionary experiments to create it.

    Nonsense. You assume that evolution must search randomly through (half of) 10^100 states to find a specific protein. That is plain wrong. Evolution is not a random search. It is plainly misleading to say so.

    And no, we don’t find there to be convenient pathways evolution could use to gradually build-up the protein. Natural selection doesn’t help.

    It has been shown experimentally [1] that fitness can be increased substantially by local moves alone. We have discussed that here. In that particular instance, a randomly scrambled system reached 52% of its original fitness through single substitutions. Nonlocal moves are required to move through the ragged landscape at the top, but evolutional variations do include nonlocal moves. Frame shifts and duplications to name a few.

    [1] Y. Hayashi et al., "Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space," PLoS ONE 1, e96 (2006); doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000096.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For a typical protein you would need more than 10^100 (a one followed by one hundred zeros) evolutionary experiments to create it.

    Probability calculations such as this depend on the model being proposed. Dr Hunter's calculation is based on the arbitrary assumption that the entirety of protein sequence space must be randomly sampled to yield functional proteins. But the incorporation of some limiting factors into the model yields a different outcome:

    "We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency."

    How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?

    David T.F Dryden, Andrew R Thomson and John H White

    http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.long

    ReplyDelete
  4. We should also not fail to mention Zachriel's favorite example of molecular serendipity:

    Functional proteins from a random-sequence library.

    Keefe AD, Szostak JW.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11287961

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your strongest statement yet with regards to the modern mythology of evolution. I see no difference in the just-so stories appearing every day in the evolution literature vs. the just-so stories of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians or whoever. The argument is this: The complexity of the protein had to have happened some way and since we know that a "good" or "rational" god would have created proteins with much different properties than what we see, we therefore "know" that proteins arose by haphazard accident.
    PS for oleg, "evolution must search"... Only intelligent agents "search" (or use tools to search).

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH said, "Evolution is a modern-day myth. No better than Zeus up in the sky, throwing down lightning bolts. But today we should know better. At least Lucretius and the Epicureans can claim scientific ignorance."

    --

    Even the Greeks didn't put a lot of stock in their Zeus myths. Unfortunately evolutionists actually believe their superstition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yawn...Cornelius mails in another one. Same old Creationist PRATT stupidity: "evolution says everything happened BY ACCIDENT!!!" No mention of the iterative, adaptive feedback nature of the process.

    And of course, IDC mouth breathers like Tedford the Idiot will crawl out from under the rock long enough to go derp! derp! derp!

    Snore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And Thumpin' Thorton chimes in again with yet another clever tid-bit soundbite.

    See, the iterative, adaptive feedback process is of course not accidental because accidents + emergence = the appearance of purpose but not actually, really that way. So um, yes it is not accidental but for sure its not purposeful cause emergence tells us that. See?

    Kudos to Thorton, that sharpest of tools in the evolutionary bag.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Really? Evolution = random chance? Really?!? Come on Cornelius, that's weak even for you.

    This is one of the most basic and fundamental misconceptions about ToE. Unfortunately it's also one of the most pervasive, since the type of people who spread it aren't generally the type of people who hold their foolish utterances up to any kind of scrutiny, and rarely check to see whether what they say is actually accurate.

    Evolution comes about through random mutation and natural selection in unison. The 'random mutation' part does contain an element of chance, of course, and I suspect it is from here that the misunderstanding arises. But it is precisely because of the non-random components that allows evolution to work.

    Random mutations arise - the 'good' ones thrive, the 'bad' ones die off. Simple. That's not a chance process. Natural selection is categorically a non-chance process. Anyone with even a high-school familiarity of science should know that.

    Your arguments are generally flawed, Cornelius, but 'evolution = chance'? Really? You usually come out with something a tad more original and competent than that. That's just embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As for Joe Felsenstein's analogy, it perfectly demonstrates the foolishness of Creationist logic which is very fond of the mantra 'Improbable = Impossible. If it's unlikely, then it didn't happen'.

    The truth is that extremely improbable things happen each and every day. Every time a child is conceived, there are millions of sperm fighting to be the one to fertilise the egg. When one succeeds, it has done so against overwhelming odds. Following Creationist logic, we should conclude that conception is most likely the result of intervention by some supernatural deity, since the chance of any sperm naturally winning this race to fertilisation is extremely low.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ritchie:"Random mutations arise - the 'good' ones thrive, the 'bad' ones die off. Simple. That's not a chance process. Natural selection is categorically a non-chance process. Anyone with even a high-school familiarity of science should know that."

    If Natural selection is not chance it should be fixed. Natural selection should be a process than can be described by a physical law that predict his outcame. Can you describe Natural salection as a physical law? Is it possible to predict the outcame of natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Blas,

    There is a huge scientific literature of mathematical models of evolution. Check out this site for the state-of-the-art.

    It is possible to predict the outcome of natural selection, but the predictions are typically probabilistic: if a mutant gene causes its carriers to have more offspring, then we can predict the probability that the mutant gene will become fixed, and we can predict how many generations that will take on average.

    If you're really interested, you'll check out that link and spend the summer reading up. Then come back and discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bias: If Natural selection is not chance it should be fixed. Natural selection should be a process than can be described by a physical law that predict his outcame

    Bias,

    Suppose we put you in an environment with random obstacles and variations. If we cannot predict your choices and response to this environment before-hand, does this mean your choices and responses are chance?

    You couldn't even predict your own choices and responses where the environment changes in ways you cannot anticipate. Yet I don't think you'd say your choices and responses have been rendered "random" due to interaction with random variations in an environment.

    We could say the same about pre-determined changes you were not informed of ahead of time. In both cases, you're responses are determined by your personality, experiences, etc. Yet they are a response to changes in an environment that you do not have foreknowledge of.

    Whether a mutation is neutral, beneficial, detrimental or somewhere in between, depends on the environment, previous selected mutations, interactions other species, their past and present selected mutations, etc.

    As such, we can say natural selection acts predictably to unpredictable environments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Troy:"It is possible to predict the outcome of natural selection, but the predictions are typically probabilistic: if a mutant gene causes its carriers to have more offspring, then we can predict the probability that the mutant gene will become fixed, and we can predict how many generations that will take on average. "

    If your predictions are probabilistic then the process is ramdom. If the process is not ramdon
    you have a fixed outcome given the starting point. And defining natural selection it is not the explanation of how mutant gene that causes more offsprings become fixed, that is only genetic laws, but how a mutation give the capacity of produce more offsprings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott: "Suppose we put you in an environment with random obstacles and variations. If we cannot predict your choices and response to this environment before-hand, does this mean your choices and responses are chance?"

    Yes, if you cannot predict a result it is ramdom. The opposite of ramdom is fixed and predictable.
    And if you admit that natural selection whatever it is needs the interaction with a "ramdom" enviroment, there is no way natural selection could be fixed. Mutation occurs in a changing enviroment so natural selection at least need the chance that themutation occurs in the enviroment that select it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blas: Yes, if you cannot predict a result it is ramdom. The opposite of ramdom is fixed and predictable.

    There is a whole continuum between fully predictable and fully random. A great example of that in physics is the motion of a small particle pushed through a viscous medium. It involves two components: deterministic, coming from the external force and viscous friction, and random Brownian motion due to thermal bombardment of the particle by the molecules of the medium. Depending on the strength of the external force, the motion can be mostly deterministic (directed drift) or mostly random (diffusion).

    Likewise, evolution has a random component (genetic variations) and a deterministic one (natural selection). The outcome is neither entirely random, nor fully predictable. It does not mean that one cannot work quantitatively with evolution or Brownian particles.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blas,

    The results of NS are random in that you can't predict specific individual outcomes, but the process does NOT have a uniform probability distribution. That's why we say NS is probabilistic.

    It's just like playing roulette against the casino where the green 0 and 00 slots give the house a built in 6% advantage. Any individual bettor may win in the short term, but in long term runs with a large population of bettors it is a virtual certainty the house will come out ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oleg:"Likewise, evolution has a random component (genetic variations) and a deterministic one (natural selection). The outcome is neither entirely random, nor fully predictable. It does not mean that one cannot work quantitatively with evolution or Brownian particles."

    Can you describe the physical law that apply to natural selection as you can describe the deterministic part of the motion of particles?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thorton:"The results of NS are random in that you can't predict specific individual outcomes, but the process does NOT have a uniform probability distribution. That's why we say NS is probabilistic."

    Sorry, I do not get it, if you can´t predict the outcomes and is probabilistic, how can be fixed?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Blas wrote: Can you describe the physical law that apply to natural selection as you can describe the deterministic part of the motion of particles?

    Natural selection is not a physical law. It is a biological term.

    Aside from that, even in physics, a deterministic process is not necessarily fully described by fundamental physical laws. One often has to use physical models that provide only an approximate description of physical processes.

    Take viscous friction as an example. There is no fundamental physical law that says "viscous friction is directed opposite to and is proportional to the velocity of the particle in a medium." It's a phenomenological model that only works approximately in a certain limit.

    Biologists, too, work with models of natural selection. There are some general statements such as the fundamental theorem of natural selection. Here is its original formulation by Fisher:

    The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.

    See A. W. F. Edwards, "The fundamental theorem of natural selection," Bio. Rev. 69, 443 (1994). doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01247.x.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bias, are you a Calvinist? If not, you likely believe that we are truly free to either accept or reject God. Would you consider this a random choice?

    Specifically, this choice is supposedly not determined by God ahead of time, but only known to him due to his existence outside of time. Furthermore, our choices are influenced by interactions with our environment, such as were we were born, etc. Yet I'm guessing you do not think our choices are rendered "random" because of these interactions.

    In other words, even God supposedly cannot predict what we'll choose as he only knows what our choice was after we made it. So, should we use your criteria, our decision to choose or reject God is unpredictable, and would therefore rendered "random."

    However, this would seem to undermine the entire idea of salvation. Why should one person be rewarded for a random choice? Why should someone else be punished for a random choice?

    Even if you were a Calvinist, this supposedly isn't the sort of information that "I", "you" or any other human being access to. As such, it's not that prediction would NOT be possible in principle, but it would be supposedly impossible for human beings, in practice.

    Therefore, the fact that "I" or another human being cannot predict a result in practice does not necessitate it being random. Whether something is random does not hinge on our ability, or lack there of, to predict it.

    For example, the motions of objects were not "random" until Newton figured out how to predict them. Nor were they random due to exceptions that could only be resolved after Einstein's more accurate predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oleg:"The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time."

    I can immagine what is an increase in fitness, but What is a genetic variance in fitness?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scott: “Bias, are you a Calvinist? If not, you likely believe that we are truly free to either accept or reject God. Would you consider this a random choice?”

    From the rational poitn of view process can be fixed ramdom or guided by a free will. But from the observational point of view, you can´t distinguish the last two, both are umpredictable.


    “For example, the motions of objects were not "random" until Newton figured out how to predict them. Nor were they random due to exceptions that could only be resolved after Einstein's more accurate predictions. “

    Before Newton humans beings do not know the physical law the objects follows but their movements were fixed.
    Objects always fell to the floor also before Newton.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Blas,

    No need to "immagine" anything. Go ahead and read the article. It defines all the terms.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bias,

    My point is that you're presenting a false dichotomy. Interaction with random processes need not render an outcome completely random. Nor does a lack of predictability necessitate complete randomness.

    if this were the case, then it's unclear how our choices would have any bearing in your particular theological view of salvation, etc.

    Our choices are, in part, determined by our, experiences, other people's actions, circumstances, events, etc. Yet it's likely you do not assume our choices are rendered completely random due to this interaction.

    Why is this the case in regards to natural selection? Is free will somehow "magic" in that it ends up on this particular end of your dichotomy?

    Bias: Before Newton humans beings do not know the physical law the objects follows but their movements were fixed. Objects always fell to the floor also before Newton.

    But, before Newton we could not predict their motion. Especially when objects interacted with other objects in complex ways. Observing a specific result again and again is not the same as predicting that result. Again, you wrote…

    Bias: Yes, if you cannot predict a result it is ramdom. The opposite of ramdom is fixed and predictable.

    Your criterial fails in this case as well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott: “My point is that you're presenting a false dichotomy. Interaction with random processes need not render an outcome completely random. Nor does a lack of predictability necessitate complete randomness.”

    And my point is how you can say natural selection is not ramdom when is not predictable when you do not observe always the same result. You can say a fixed process is ramdom by ignorance of all the data, but not saying the opposite. Give me an example of fixed process with ramdom results. 

    “If this were the case, then it's unclear how our choices would have any bearing in your particular theological view of salvation, etc. 

    Our choices are, in part, determined by our, experiences, other people's actions, circumstances, events, etc. Yet it's likely you do not assume our choices are rendered completely random due to this interaction. 

    Why is this the case in regards to natural selection? Is free will somehow "magic" in that it ends up on this particular end of your dichotomy? “

    Seems you are not following me. I will reword what I said. We cannot predict human choices. We cannot predict if Mr XX will choose Coke or Pepsi , we see the process of selecting a soda like a ramdom process no mattter there is free will or not. So free will is not a problem in this discussion.

    “Observing a specific result again and again is not the same as predicting that result “

    No, it is not predicting, but is a pattern of fixed process not a ramdom one.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Blas said...

    Scott: “My point is that you're presenting a false dichotomy. Interaction with random processes need not render an outcome completely random. Nor does a lack of predictability necessitate complete randomness.”

    And my point is how you can say natural selection is not ramdom when is not predictable when you do not observe always the same result. You can say a fixed process is ramdom by ignorance of all the data, but not saying the opposite. Give me an example of fixed process with ramdom results


    For the slow learners we'll explain once again that the 'natural selection' part is random but doesn't have a uniform probability distribution. Because of differential reproductive success some outcomes are more likely than others. That means the results for any given individual aren't fixed but the long term pattern can be determined with a probability approaching 1.

    Imagine 1000 people playing Russian Roulette with 1000 six-shot revolvers. 500 of the people have revolvers have one bullet in them, 500 people have a gun with five bullets.

    The individual results will NOT be fixed or predetermined. Not every one on the one-bullet people will live, not every one of the five-bullet people will die, but on average 5x more of the five-shot people will end up "ventilated".

    ReplyDelete
  28. Blas - Indeed we can predict the evolution of a species: it will be, as it always is, towards greater fitness (ie, better adaptation to its environment).

    Natural selection preferentially propagates 'good' characteristics and deletes 'bad' ones. That is fixed and unchanging. And it ensures species evolve in one direction only - towards greater fitness. Like a ratchet, good mutations simply build up over time.

    Now we cannot be more specific about the evolution of a species simply because there are so many factors involved. 'Good' and 'bad' characteristics are relative terms, defined by the environment, which is made up of incalculable factors. Also, the mutations which provide the raw materials for diversity ARE, indeed, random, in that they are not predetermined towards greater fitness. However, the ones that DO prove beneficial are the ones which will pass through the filter of natural selection. That fact alone is fixed, unchanging, and precisely the reason why evolution via natural selection is not a random process.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ritchie:"Now we cannot be more specific about the evolution of a species simply because there are so many factors involved. " "the environment, which is made up of incalculable factors."

    This is the definition of ramdom process, when a process is influenced by to much factors to be predictable.

    "Natural selection preferentially propagates 'good' characteristics and deletes 'bad' ones."

    Are you sure about that? Why mutants with broken GOLUP gene where selected against the normal population with GOLUP?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thorton:"Because of differential reproductive success some outcomes are more likely than others."

    So according to you Natural Selection is equal to differential reproductive success.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Blas: Why mutants with broken GOLUP gene where selected against the normal population with GOLUP?

    The broken gene was selectively neutral.

    Blas: So according to you Natural Selection is equal to differential reproductive success.

    Due to heritable differences.

    Blas: This is the definition of ramdom process, when a process is influenced by to much factors to be predictable.

    Even random processes can lead to predictable results. Take a deep breath. Your lungs create a partial vacuum, yet the stochastic motion of air molecules quickly and reliably fill that vacuum.

    Mutations are the random component, with natural selection being the pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Zachirel said:
    "Blas: Why mutants with broken GOLUP gene where selected against the normal population with GOLUP?

    The broken gene was selectively neutral."

    In other species they conserved the GOLUP gene, so in some species is neutral and in others is not neutral. This is not ramdom?
    And if Natural Selection conserve neutral and positive what kind of selection is?

    "Blas: So according to you Natural Selection is equal to differential reproductive success.

    Due to heritable differences.

    "Blas: This is the definition of ramdom process, when a process is influenced by to much factors to be predictable.

    Even random processes can lead to predictable results. Take a deep breath. Your lungs create a partial vacuum, yet the stochastic motion of air molecules quickly and reliably fill that vacuum.

    Mutations are the random component, with natural selection being the pressure."

    So any life form can be explained by reproductive success?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Blas said...

    Thorton:"Because of differential reproductive success some outcomes are more likely than others."

    So according to you Natural Selection is equal to differential reproductive success.


    Natural selection is the name given to the process of competition between animals with dissimilar heritable characteristics leading to differential reproductive success.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thorton: "Natural selection is the name given to the process of competition between animals with dissimilar heritable characteristics leading to differential reproductive success."

    Good definition. Now observing the nature you can say that the competition of animals with dissimilar heritable caracteristics is a fixed process? It is predictable? It is not dependant of the enviroment conditions? And the enviroment conditions are not variable and ramdom variable with the time?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Blas -

    Of course environments change, and in too many ways to be predictable. That does not change the fact that natural selection changes in only one direction - towards greater fitness. That alone does not change, and is why ToE is 'random chance'.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie:"Of course environments change, and in too many ways to be predictable. That does not change the fact that natural selection changes in only one direction - towards greater fitness. That alone does not change, and is why ToE is 'random chance'."

    Always in this discussion we reach the part where I do not get the darwinist logic.
    Natural selection select toward greater fitness. Fitness to a ramdom enviroment and natural selection it is not ramdom?
    You can lose a mutate gene because is a disadvantage in this enviroment situation, but could be advantageous in the future enviroment situation and that it is not ramdom?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Natural selection select toward greater fitness."

    Yes.

    "Fitness to a ramdom enviroment and natural selection it is not ramdom?"

    Correct.

    "You can lose a mutate gene because is a disadvantage in this enviroment situation, but could be advantageous in the future enviroment situation and that it is not ramdom?"

    Yes.

    Perhaps an analogy will help.

    Compare natural selection to a sieve. I might say that I believe sieves are not fixed and predictable things because they produce different results. Every time I seive something, I end up with different products.

    If I put wet lettuce into a seive, I seperate lettuce from water. If I put rocks and sand into a seive, I seperate rocks from the sand. You get the idea.

    Now imagine you weren't really sure what I was going to put into the seive next. I could put anything into the seive. My selection of things to put into the seive is, for you, unpredictable. Random, if you will.

    That does not mean the seive functions in a random way. It is fixed and functions in exactly the same, simple way every time. You cannot predict the outcome of my next seiving, because you do not know what I will next put into the seive. But you know exactly HOW THE SEIVE WORKS, and you know it works in exactly the same way (ie, not in a random way).

    Thus it is with natural selection. We cannot predict precise outcomes because we do not know exactly what mutations will randomly arise within a gene pool. But one thing we do know - natural selection will root out the bad ones and allow the good ones to thrive and spread. That is fixed.

    Or perhaps it would be helpful to compare it to a GENUINELY random process. If there was no natural selection, living things would follow what we would call a 'random walk'. That is, some mutations would spread throughout a gene pool, some would not. But this would have nothing to do with whether the mutation was beneficial or not. Sometimes a beneficial mutation spreads, sometimes it dies out. Sometimes a harmful mutation spreads, sometimes it dies out. This really would be random change. A species would wander back and forth across a 'fitness landscape' but not really proceed far in any given direction. It is thus necessary to introduce natural selection - a mechanism by which 'good' muations are preserved and spread, while 'bad' mutations are picked off - to see how species make any evolutionary progress.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ritchie:"That does not mean the seive functions in a random way. It is fixed and functions in exactly the same, simple way every time. You cannot predict the outcome of my next seiving, because you do not know what I will next put into the seive. But you know exactly HOW THE SEIVE WORKS, and you know it works in exactly the same way (ie, not in a random way)."

    Your sieve also change the size of his holes. Sometimes it less pass only water sometimes it let pass some small lettuce leaves.

    "But one thing we do know - natural selection will root out the bad ones and allow the good ones to thrive and spread. That is fixed."

    That is not true. Maybe because bad or good are relative or ramdom terms in this context. But natural selection selected mammals with and without functional GOLUP genes for example.
    Or natural selection selected protozoa that have genomas 1000 bigger than the average of the genoma of protozoa. That is a reproductive advantage?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Blas -

    "Your sieve also change the size of his holes. Sometimes it less pass only water sometimes it let pass some small lettuce leaves."

    But it still functions in the same, fixed manner.

    "But natural selection selected mammals with and without functional GOLUP genes for example."

    Some genes are neutral in terms of advantageousness. If they are not significantly beneficial or harmful, then there will not be a strong selection pressure selecting for or against them.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ritchie:"Some genes are neutral in terms of advantageousness. If they are not significantly beneficial or harmful, then there will not be a strong selection pressure selecting for or against them."

    So, Natural selections sometimes works, sometimes do not works. And that it is not ramdom?

    Any explanation for the super genoma protozoa?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "So, Natural selections sometimes works, sometimes do not works. And that it is not ramdom?"

    No, that is not what I am saying at all. You are being, I suspect deliberately, obtuse. If a gene confers a strong benefit or handicap, it will be nurtured or culled by natural selection. But many genes are not expressed, or confer little in the way of advantage or disadvantage. That doesn't make natural selection random.

    "Any explanation for the super genoma protozoa?"

    What is it exactly you think requires explanaton?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Blas: In other species they conserved the GOLUP gene, so in some species is neutral and in others is not neutral. This is not ramdom?

    No, it's not random. Organisms that do not have sufficient vitamin-C in their diets are selected for their ability to synthesize their own vitamin-C.

    Blas: And if Natural Selection conserve neutral and positive what kind of selection is?

    There is a statistical relationship between selection, drift and preponderance in a population. Selection is a tendency towards preponderance due to heritable traits. However, even without selection, there is a finite chance of fixation.

    Blas: So any life form can be explained by reproductive success?

    Well, that's rather obvious. However, we can refine that somewhat by saying that some traits are more likely to be preserved in future generations.

    You seem to be confused on the meaning of random.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Zachriel:
    "No, it's not random. Organisms that do not have sufficient vitamin-C in their diets are selected for their ability to synthesize their own vitamin-C."

    You are assuming they lost the GOLUP after get a rich vitamin-C diet, you do noy have prove of that. And if it is true "natural selection" is ramdom because it depends of the time when the mutatuin accur.

    Blas: And if Natural Selection conserve neutral and positive what kind of selection is?

    "There is a statistical relationship between selection, drift and preponderance in a population. Selection is a tendency towards preponderance due to heritable traits. However, even without selection, there is a finite chance of fixation."

    Then "natural selection" is ramdom sometimes acts, sametimes genetical drift by chance acts.

    "Well, that's rather obvious. However, we can refine that somewhat by saying that some traits are more likely to be preserved in future generations"

    So "natural selection" is ramdoms because it depends of how "likely" to preserve are the traits.











    You seem to be confused on the meaning of random.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Blas: You are assuming they lost the GOLUP after get a rich vitamin-C diet, you do noy have prove of that.

    If an individual has mutation that disables the ability to produce vitamin-C, then they will be disabled or die if there is insufficient vitamin-C in their diet. That's negative selection.

    Blas: And if it is true "natural selection" is ramdom because it depends of the time when the mutatuin accur.

    Um, no. The mutations are random. Sometimes the mutation will occur when there is plenty of vitamin-C in the environment. Sometimes the mutation will occur when there is a lack of vitamin-C in the environment. The former will be selectively neutral, while the latter will be selectively negative.

    Blas: Then "natural selection" is ramdom sometimes acts, sametimes genetical drift by chance acts.

    Mutation is random with respect to fitness. Natural selection isn't random, but correlated with fitness.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just take a coin and toss it 100 times. The resulting sequence of Heads and Tails has a probability of only 1 part in the 100th power of 2. Which is about 1 part in 10-to-the-30th. Wow, that is really improbable. Yet you can do it every time!

    I am so tired of this crap... you idiot, something that happens every time has, by definition, a probability of one! Even Dembski makes this mistake. Math is hard.

    ReplyDelete