The Myth of Natural Selection

[Michaelangelica]

.

 

Individual luck and being in the right place at the right time, to survive? Now that really is an interesting point. Is it luck or sensory awareness? Perhaps the less intelligent breed but are they the best at survival? Maybe there is a mechanism at work, socially, that needs survivors and breeders but not necessarily within the same being?

It is hard to imagine a genetic mechanism at work when your whole Island blows up with a volcano or a big, bloody meteorite 'slam dunks' you.

 

Everyone wants the best, not the caste off or local bicycle but when it comes to breeding that is what you may end up with (horses for courses).

Natural Selection does not necessarily give you the best.

It just gives you what natural selection, selects.

[paigetheoracle]

See, what evolutionists want us to believe is that change in animals happens over thousands/millions of years. But do you want to know the truth? It happens instantly. It happens during development. Animals are shaped and molded from the moment of conception -- and the process will continue throughout their lifetimes.

 

It's the little secret that evolutionists don't want you to know.

 

And it's the same with finches. Evolutionists claim that finch beaks evolved via natural selection. But guess what....finches have a gene called Bmp4 that gets activated during development. What does this gene do? It stimulates beak GROWTH. This mutation is not an accident. If you know anything about Grant's finches, you know that after the environment changed, all the new finches emerged with the correct beak size to match up with their new enviornment. This process was not due to death, but due to life.

 

God did not create this earth so that animals have to die in order to change. He created this earth so animals could change -- so they don't have to die! This change is called phenotypic plasticity -- otherwise known as individual adaptivity. This is a result of inner intelligence that deciphers external conditions. It happens pre-development and it happens post development. And see....evolutionists choose not to TEST this because it would destroy their whole theory. Thus -- they don't. And this keeps the charade alive. Phenotypic plastcity is a phenomenon that happens all across the globe -- yet the evolutionist still stick to their story that these finches must have evolved through death.

 

But animals don't have to die to change or adapt to their enviornment. This is the Neo-darwin achilles heal. (ever notice that darwinists NEVER test animals to see how they react to a change in environment?....you think this is an accident?)

 

Moths -- and every other animal has similar abilities (to emerge with specific traits, pre-adapted according to external conditions.) Life is indeed a miracle.

 

This puts the big hurt on evolutionists. Life doesn't evolve randomly and slowly over millions of years -- but instantly and with purpose after conception. They've got it all backwards.

 

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

 

In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Anthropologist, Tom Kemp

 

Very intertesting! I remember reading in Fortean Times that Agar Gel as used on slides, never used to crystallise until a few years back when it suddenly did it one laboratory and then instantly spread across the globe so that nowadays it all does it all over.

 

Evolution as a developmental movement (physical) could only be internal as far as I can see too (genetic change/ the car factory analogy I used in an earlier post on this thread, I believe) but I do believe 'behavioural evolution' (mental) happens all the time and is called 'learning'. It is instant and involves all species - again the Fortean Times gives mention of one sheep in Wales that learnt to cross cattle grids by rolling over them, rather than try to walk over them and this too seems to have spread like wildfire, so that now all sheep in this country know how to do it, if not those abroad (If they had it might prove a telepathic form of communication as they are not known to use phones). Then of course there are The Japanese Macaques (monkeys) that learnt to wash their food, not only to clean it but by using salt water to improve its taste (They also used it to separate rice grains from sand (the grains floated), indicating intelligence. Another band also discovered hot volcanic springs as instant jacuzzi's for warming themselves up during the winter. All of this post war.

 

Then of course there is human civilization and industrial revolution, plus daily problem solving in the human field.

[paigetheoracle]

Luck?

 

Well Supersport, you've hit on a good point about survival and the spread of a population. If you have no competition in a particular environment and a good food supply, then you will spread like wildfire through breeding. In the UK this has been seen with the successful invasion of the Grey Squirrel, American Crayfish, small European scorpions in select locations and a form of oriental crab that burrows into river banks, causing terrible damage to the Thames at the moment.

 

Then there are the plants like Japanese Knotweed, Rhododendrons and Elephant Parsley (Know not Elvis Pressley - sorry but I've forgotten its correct title) - all of which have found there way into this country and are classified as weeds (horsetails and brambles equally have spread like wildfire but are considered native because they got passed our defences long ago but the message is that flowers are considered more delicate and limited to particular environments/ areas, whereas weeds are pests that get everywhere and can't be controlled: Think of this in regards to Natural selection and this particular thread! Dominance and the Biblical 'fall' - it's not just individuals that die but civilizations. Breeding by the new - survival of the old [established]).

 

Does any of this make more sense of natural selection for you Supersport? If not think of the morality viewpoint pushed at us by monotheistic religions, which boil down to 'What is good, we eat (control). What is bad, eats (controls)us'. Lastly there is the class thing, which ties in with this too and explains its attitudes towards greed and conservation (Haves and have nots). Look at the human world, if the natural world doesn't give you the clues you need to how the world really works, as opposed to how it nearly works (badly, bodged, comprimised). Mankinds attitudes and actions equally reflect the power struggles (defences and attacks) of nature. Life is a good book - you don't need the Bible or any other guide, if you use your own eyes.

[Michaelangelica]

It is interesting how emotionally involved and defensive we become of our pet Scientific Theories.

They are, after all, only the best approximation of the truth we have at the moment. That does not mean that they can't be questioned and discussed. i am sure Einstein would be happy to be proved wrong about E=MC2 if a better explanation of the world came along.

 

I guess Darwin may be an exception because of all the silly, right-wing, fundamentalist christian propaganda and attacks made against him. This makes scientists a bit defensive.

Still Natural Selection is only a theory (of how evolution happens, -and strictly not Darwin's anyhow) and as such should be discussed like any other scientific artifact. Hopefully without getting too hot under the collar.

Then again there have been some pretty ferocious scientific debates in history when people take up entrenched positions. I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Passion for one's subject is good but it needs to be tempered with reason and and respect for the facts (as we presently know them).

[sh2master]

What if I could prove to you that being more "fit" was not tied to mutations?

 

Clowns would fly out of my *** if you could prove that.

[Michaelangelica]

Clowns would fly out of my *** if you could prove that.

I too, don't believe that mutations are the ONLY mechanism of evolution.

 

DNA can be changed in a number of ways. Not just random mutations.

I don't think just random mutations would have got us here this quickly.

RNA trascription can be different

It has been shown that adjacent cells can effect DNA expression of other cells. etc

The total environment too, plays a role.

[Pyrotex]

...Still Natural Selection is only a theory (of how evolution happens, -and strictly not Darwin's anyhow) and as such should be discussed like any other scientific artifact.....

Hi! :)

In Darwin's "Origin of Species", he deals directly with (and gives the name to) "natural selection" (NS). So, it is his idea, and in fact, the central theme of his book.

 

NS is not a theory any more than "falling objects" in Earth's gravitational field are a theory. Can you imagine someone defying you to prove that falling objects exist? Darwin started by selecting an ordinary word and using it to refer to a process, like falling objects, that goes on all the time, all around us. Animal A has an offspring and its litter mate, animal B, does not. That is "selection". There's nothing more to it. There's nothing to read into that. It's what happens in the real world.

 

You! You will either have children (passing on your genes) or you won't. That's selection. There is nothing mysterious or theoretical about it.

 

First, Darwin examines "artificial selection" -- the breeding of dogs by dog fanciers in England. Then Darwin examines selection that occurs in the wild, without human intervention to guide it -- "natural selection". So, NS is not some airy-fairy theory. Every time any wild animal has offspring or dies before it has a chance to have (more) offspring, we are talking about the observable process of NS.

 

The "theory" is not NS, but the idea that NS can lead to genetic drift in a population of animals -- THE SAME WAY that artificial selection does. Only slower, and not guided toward some desired final destination, as dog fanciers are wont to do.

 

Darwin poses the question: if "genetic pressure" from the dog fancier can turn a wolf into a poodle in 500 generations, then what can happen by the "genetic pressure" of environment, climate, predators, availability of food, etc?

 

It is AT THIS POINT that Darwin introduces his "theory": NS will tend (on average, and over time) to "favor" those animals that are more "fit" for their environment, even if only by the slightest margins. It is these animals that will tend to pass their genetic traits on to following generations.

 

Darwin goes into great depth in this argument, tackling it from several angles, using several examples of artificial selection and natural selection, and demonstating that there is no good reason why NS can't (in a metaphorical sense) make poodles out of wolves (end of metaphor) just like dog fanciers did.

[Michaelangelica]

Hi! :esheriff:

In Darwin's "Origin of Species", he deals directly with (and gives the name to) "natural selection" (NS). So, it is his idea, and in fact, the central theme of his book.

You have the advantage on me of having read The Master. The most quoted and least read book after K. Marx?(I have read his(CD's) biography does that count?):phones:

But it is my understanding that Darwin had no idea of how; or even perhaps why "Natural Selection" might work.

It was not until people started to put his work together with the neglected genetic studies of Mendel that NS as we know it was born

.. .

Now, with the huge advances in modern genetics, I think it is time to add some more mechanisms than NS to explain evolution.:cup:

michael

[Michaelangelica]

This is taking things too far.

Is this free speach?!

Complete, shocking article is here

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

 

November 28, 2006 | Issue 42•48

 

The Onion

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

 

TOPEKA, KS—In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life.

Enlarge Image Kansas Outlaws R

 

Lawmakers decried spontaneous genetic mutations.

 

"From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."

. . .

"If Kansans want to ban evolution, that is their right, but they must understand that we rely on a certain flexibility in the natural order of things to be able to deliver healthy food products to millions of Americans," said Carl Casale, a vice president with the agricultural giant Monsanto.

;)

[Pyrotex]

You have the advantage on me of having read The Master....But it is my understanding that Darwin had no idea of how; or even perhaps why "Natural Selection" might work.

It was not until people started to put his work together with the neglected genetic studies of Mendel that NS as we know it was born...

I can't blame anyone for not reading "Origin of Species"; the Edwardian English is quite stilted and academic. But don't let that keep you from trying. :hyper:

 

No, actually, it was natural selection that Darwin understood BEST! It was the mechanism of inheritance that he had no way of understanding. (Even though Mendel had already published it in a journal that no one would read until after Darwin died!) As I said before, NS was "invented" by Darwin; that is to say, he coined the phrase to refer to a ubiquitous, ever-present, mundane, always-occurring process that nobody else had given any thought to. And it is: some animals breed and some don't. This "selection" of which animals breed, he called "selection". That's it. Selection can be "artificial" if humans control the process, or "natural" if humans don't.

 

So, whoever told you that Darwin didn't really understand NS either wasn't in on the joke, or was himself misinformed.

 

In his book, Darwin did make reference to inherited characteristics -- he had to or there would have been no theory! -- but he could only speculate what mechanisms might control it. Here, he was on loose ground, so he speculated on the properties that inheritance must have in order to make his theory work.

 

And here is the best part: He was spot on! Even without having a clue about DNA and genes, his speculation of the broad boundaries of how inheritance should work eventually proved correct. In fact, today we know that evolution could not work at all unless inheritance operated via a near-perfect "digital" transmission of characteristics, as DNA in fact does.

 

Let me repeat one more time: there is NO theory of natural selection! NS is merely the name that Darwin gave to the factual observation that some critters reproduce and other critters don't. It really is that easy. Don't make something hard out of it.

[Buffy]

If you want to really understand what Darwin meant without ploding through the prose, I always recommend Stephen Jay Gould's essays. He hits the topic in several of his books including Bully for the Brontosaurus and Dinosaur in a Haystack (both of which I re-read recently, and I don't often re-read books!). He's *so* entertaining, and he's overqualified if anything to have an opinion about what Darwin really meant.

 

We miss him so. Sniff.

 

Paleontologically,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...I always recommend Stephen Jay Gould's essays. ...He's *so* entertaining, and he's overqualified if anything to have an opinion about what Darwin really meant....

Amen.

 

I also recommend "Beautiful Life", though in it, Gould doesn't specifically address what Darwin meant. It's just a fabulous read, and an amazing insight into the minds of paleontologists.

 

<The Cheshire Flamingo>