What exactly is "natural selection"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, I certainly didn't expect disagreement about the subject by the experts.

 

[The Cadet]

I would say that Dr. Koonin's essays on where evolutionary biology is today are quite close to the the mark. The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

from koonin:
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

One of the three, of course, being natural selection. You obviously seem to have misread his work, which would make a lot of sense, as natural selection is the driving mechanism behind all phenotype change - without it, nothing in biology makes any sense.

 

[whois]

this makes the 4th time i have challanged the cadet to send him my posts where i have allegedly misquoted koonin.
the cadet refuses to do that for some reason.

edit.
BTW, for those that want to know more about what koonin has to say about this topic:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

more of what koonin says can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab.

 

[plummyy]

Is it a force, a plan, a grand design?
Is it internal or external?
If internal how does it affect things external?
If external how does if affect things internal?
Can it be isolated and identified materially?
Where and when did it originate?
Does it have creative powers?
Is it still working today?
What does it have planned for us?

here you go

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I would say that Dr. Koonin's essays on where evolutionary biology is today are quite close to the the mark. The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

from koonin:
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

Certainly Kimura's neutral theory was a significant addition/refinement of evolutionary theory. it was not a repudiation of either population genetics from the 1930s, nor Darwin's contributions in the 1800s.

 

[Jan Volkes]

If George Washington owned the axe through all the changes then it is still George Washington's axe, if he didn't then it's not George Washington's axe.

But that's quibbling about what words mean, not about what happened.

No it's not it's simply a fact, if everything that makes the axe an axe has changed since George Washington owned it then the axe did not belong to George Washington.

 

[whois]

Certainly Kimura's neutral theory was a significant addition/refinement of evolutionary theory. it was not a repudiation of either population genetics from the 1930s, nor Darwin's contributions in the 1800s.

i think koonins main thrust in jumping on darwin is getting rid of outdated concepts.
i also believe that koonin is trying to integrate ALL of biology into the theory, not just select groups, vis darwin.
when koonin said darwinism belongs in a museum, he was right, it's time to let the poor boy rest and move on into the 21st century.
koonin knows this will not be easy, some will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming.

edit:
i gave a link in post 23 about koonins thoughts on the matter, here's another:
nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

BTW, welcome to the forum

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I think that Koonin knew that an extremely provocative stance would get him a lot of attention. He might become the science version of a Reality television celebrity.

Stephen Gould ran far ahead of his actual scientific production with making huge assertions that he later ignored.

 

[whois]

I think that Koonin knew that an extremely provocative stance would get him a lot of attention.

???
you can't be serious.
koonin could stand to lose everything he had by doing such a thing.

He might become the science version of a Reality television celebrity.

actually, if he was doing this for the glam and glitz, he stands a very good chance of getting booted from the establishment entirely.
plus, koonin seems to be going in the same direction as the research.

Stephen Gould ran far ahead of his actual scientific production with making huge assertions that he later ignored.

in any case, the tide seems to be turning to koonins favor.
a lot of what he is saying is gaining ground, and the current research seems to support it.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Is it a force, a plan, a grand design?
Is it internal or external?
If internal how does it affect things external?
If external how does if affect things internal?
Can it be isolated and identified materially?
Where and when did it originate?
Does it have creative powers?
Is it still working today?
What does it have planned for us?

Controls the expression of phenotypes and can cause mutations (think poodles). It doesn't manufacture new genetic info that wasn't previously present in the progenitors. So genetic info that isn't helpful in the environment might get lost, but not created. In other words, you might get an animal better suited for its environment, but the amount of genetic info available is actually dumbed down.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Darwin's seminal publication on evolution in 1859 was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." In it he emphasized the "selective" survival of "favored" individuals. This allowed them to be more able at reproduction. Their offspring being more like the "favored" individuals would over generations become new species.

You should also realize that Darwin wrote quite a lot more than the "origin."

In 1862, his book "The Fertilisation of Orchids," introduced the idea of mutualism, or "Co-evolution." He made the prediction that there must be a moth with an extreme proboscis to fertilize the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale. It was not until 1992 that his prediction was confirmed without any doubt.

Ardetti, J., Elliott, J., Kitching, I.J. & Wasserthal, L.T. 2012, 'Good Heavens what insect can suck it' – Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 169 403-432.

In 1871 his book on Human evolution, introduced the notion of "sexual selection" which we call today "behavioral selection." This has been confirmed without any doubt.

Darwin's later publications on artificial selection focused on the natural extremes of variation within species.

He came close to covering the topic.

What he did miss was from genetics. That actually expanded the possible evolution of life removing problems Darwin has seen, but could not resolve.

 

[Jan Volkes]

It's simply a matter of, 'I want to believe there is a god and that god made me, anything that does not confirm that there is a god is wrong, reality will be dismissed if it does not confirm what I want to believe.'

 

[whois]

Darwin's seminal publication on evolution in 1859 was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." In it he emphasized the "selective" survival of "favored" individuals. This allowed them to be more able at reproduction. Their offspring being more like the "favored" individuals would over generations become new species.

You should also realize that Darwin wrote quite a lot more than the "origin."

In 1862, his book "The Fertilisation of Orchids," introduced the idea of mutualism, or "Co-evolution." He made the prediction that there must be a moth with an extreme proboscis to fertilize the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale. It was not until 1992 that his prediction was confirmed without any doubt.

Ardetti, J., Elliott, J., Kitching, I.J. & Wasserthal, L.T. 2012, 'Good Heavens what insect can suck it' – Charles Darwin, Angraecum sesquipedale and Xanthopan morganii praedicta. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 169 403-432.

In 1871 his book on Human evolution, introduced the notion of "sexual selection" which we call today "behavioral selection." This has been confirmed without any doubt.

Darwin's later publications on artificial selection focused on the natural extremes of variation within species.

He came close to covering the topic.

What he did miss was from genetics. That actually expanded the possible evolution of life removing problems Darwin has seen, but could not resolve.

thanks for your well thought out post, but you are missing a couple of things in regards to koonin.
first of all koonin is attempting an integration of all life, not just select groups such as plants and animals.
this makes reasonable sense.
you have mentioned the second, namely genomic research.
this is the heart and soul of evolution and it must include all life.
the current concepts of evolution are based mainly on visual and comparative observations of a select group, plants and animals.
the current theory is based on that.
in order to accommodate all life, we must base the theory on genetic concepts, and this is what koonin is attempting to do.

a really good analogy would be newtonian physics and relativity.
IOW, newtonian physics works great in most cases, but you need relativity to really explain things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's simply a matter of, 'I want to believe there is a god and that god made me, anything that does not confirm that there is a god is wrong, reality will be dismissed if it does not confirm what I want to believe.'

It is ideas like "co-evolution" to explain complex interdependence that send me to the refrigerator for another beer.

Dr GS Hurd wrote,

"In 1862, his (Darwin) book "The Fertilisation of Orchids," introduced the idea of mutualism, or "Co-evolution." He made the prediction that there must be a moth with an extreme proboscis to fertilize the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale. It was not until 1992 that his prediction was confirmed without any doubt."

 

[The Cadet]

this makes the 4th time i have challanged the cadet to send him my posts where i have allegedly misquoted koonin.
the cadet refuses to do that for some reason.

I'm not saying you misquoted Koonin. I'm saying clearly there's some disconnect between his research and your interpretation of your research, because Koonin clearly accepts natural selection!

 

[SkyWriting]

Is it a force, a plan, a grand design?
Is it internal or external?
If internal how does it affect things external?
If external how does if affect things internal?
Can it be isolated and identified materially?
Where and when did it originate?
Does it have creative powers?
Is it still working today?
What does it have planned for us?

From the human perspective, it's too hard to predict how life will proceded, but it's possible.
Like in a conflict between a mouse and a hungry snake, we can make good guesses.
From God's perspective, it's all a done deal.
God already knows the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

If you try to blend those two together you get ideas like "guided evolution"
or "predestination." But the two views have no real ability to blend.

Natural Selection is an engineered process designed to allow for life to
continue, even as sin takes it's toll on Creation. What was originally perfect,
is now subject to Sin, through Adam, and not connected with God's Will anymore.
Even though Creation breaks down, it was given the ability to adapt and fight corruption.

Here are my Creationist ramblings in secular terms:

DNA can be damaged by different environmental insults, such as ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, oxidative stress or certain drugs. If the DNA is not repaired, cells may begin growing uncontrollably, leading to the development of cancer. Therefore, cells must maintain an intricate regulatory network to ensure that their DNA remains intact.

 

[whois]

I'm not saying you misquoted Koonin. I'm saying clearly there's some disconnect between his research and your interpretation of your research, because Koonin clearly accepts natural selection!

why is it you ALWAYS say i misinterpret his research but don't say how?
i've upload the papers so i politely ask you to prove your comment.

 

[Loudmouth]

this makes the 4th time i have challanged the cadet to send him my posts where i have allegedly misquoted koonin.

The misunderstanding exists on your end. Koonin fully accepts that adaptive evolution is driven by natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

why is it you ALWAYS say i misinterpret his research but don't say how?

You misinterpret genomic complexity as adaptive evolution. Those are two different things.

 

[Loudmouth]

From the human perspective, it's too hard to predict how life will proceded, but it's possible.
Like in a conflict between a mouse and a hungry snake, we can make good guesses.
From God's perspective, it's all a done deal.
God already knows the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

If you try to blend those two together you get ideas like "guided evolution"
or "predestination." But the two views have no real ability to blend.

Natural Selection is an engineered process designed to allow for life to
continue, even as sin takes it's toll on Creation. What was originally perfect,
is now subject to Sin, through Adam, and not connected with God's Will anymore.
Even though Creation breaks down, it was given the ability to adapt and fight corruption.

Here are my Creationist ramblings in secular terms:

DNA can be damaged by different environmental insults, such as ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, oxidative stress or certain drugs. If the DNA is not repaired, cells may begin growing uncontrollably, leading to the development of cancer. Therefore, cells must maintain an intricate regulatory network to ensure that their DNA remains intact.

There are 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Are you saying that all of those mutations are harmful?