Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.
Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
Horizontal gene transfer is an important factor in evolution of many (not all) organisms, e.g. bacteria.

I feel like I am in ground hog day. havnt I already supplied this evidence here

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics states known biology ("natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution") and that natural selection is not "quantitatively dominant". This means that natural selection is responsible for < 50% of evolution, not that natural selection can be neglected or is "minimal".

First of all how did you equate that the paper is saying that natural selection is 50% of the contribution. If you read the paper then you would have understood what it was implying. The paper also said the following which is the basic concept of the entire paper that adaptive evolution ie (natural selection acting on random mutations) does not account for genomic complexity and gene networks are the result of non adaptive forces under weak purifying selection. So at the most natural selection is action as a weak purifier and is not dominant. So that is saying it isn't 50% but is minor, weaker and natural selection on its own does not lead to building gene networks.

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

But as I have stated before this paper is consistent with the other ones I have posted which do say that natural selection is minor, and even insufficient.

 

[stevevw]

That's simply false. When people accuse you of quote mining, that includes misleading summaries of them.

Can you please explain to me how I have quote mine4d. Quote mined means taking a quote for a large article and using it out of context. I have used large sections as well as smaller quotes both together and explained the context of them which I believe is correct. Now I may be accused of being wrong in my explanations but I dont believe I am quote mining to that point of being misleading with what the original text is saying.

I also disagree that with you in saying it is false that the papers I am using are not talking about the main part of evolution which is basically Darwin's theory of evolution through adaptations of natural selection acting on random mutations.

So once again I will post exactly what I have been posting and show that it isn't out of context and it isn't quote mining. But please tell me or show me how it isn't referring to the Darwin's theory and how I am posting single quotes out of context from the original papers. An accusation demands some support.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

The above section is talking about a main tenet if not the whole idea of evolution is it not.
I wont go into any further details and allow you to read the paper and decide for yourself if what I am saying is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

There is nothing in that comment about adaptive processes being your "negligible and/or minimal". It is adaptive processes (selection) being restricted by processes of development.
More comments:
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well

Still leaves the amount of errors made by you and many irrelevant papers that you have cited which makes assertions from you dubious.

I cant see any errors that I have made. You havnt pointed them out. The ones you have I have replied and provided support for what I said. As for the nature article why do you only rely to this one and not the others that clearly state that natural selection is insufficient and has inability and is even not necessary. If those descriptions are not saying minimal and or negligible then you dont understand English. It seems your dancing all around the issue trying not to be pinned down. Whether you agree that these papers are right or wrong they are clearly stating that non adaptive forces are more prominent than adaptive forces of natural selection.

The nature article does state this if you understand it. When it states that the standard theory of evolution which is darwins theory sees that the sole driver of evolution that explains everything is natural selection and that this view is too narrow and that there is a whole lot more to it this is part of my objection against evolution in that not only are there other forces which are more dominant but that supporters dont even acknowledge that there are any other forces and that natural selection is the be all and end all solution to everything we see. They do this by relegating the other forces that have been suggested as nothing, minor players that are just smaller outcomes, byproducts of evolution.

What the nature paper is saying NO the smaller outcomes are actually the main driving forces and evolution has relegated them out of the picture so they can give natural selection all the credit. They do this because it helps promote the power of self creating mechanisms that can build genetic networks which build the creatures they have been claiming that evolution can create ever since the theory was conceptualized. They dont want to let go of these main ideas because that is all they have. As stated by this section in the nature paper,

Yet the mere mention of the EES (extended evolution synthesis) (Or non adaptive additions my emphasis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the specter of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
(This seems to be exactly whats happening here)

So the small byproducts that evolution relegates to the sidelines are the main driving forces and natural selection is a smaller player that acts on those. So for example rather than extraordinary and unbelievable confidences of convergent evolution happening development bias causes animals to grow along certain set paths that happen to be similar even in distantly related animals. This then makes non adaptive forces like developmental bias the main cause of why creatures have similar features and not evolution by natural selection working through chance mutations adapting animals for survival alone which demands the process to filter through many possible end results and happens to coincidentally find similar traits over and over again.

So in that sense developmental bias is more responsible for how animals change than natural selection. All natural selection would be doing is refining something that has already been produced. So natural selection isn't creating the feature in the first place its just refining the end results. So if times that by the other non adaptive forces you understand what the non adaptive forces represent and the role they play in how life changes you begin to see that they are actually the main drivers and in that sense it relegates natural selection to a minor/minimal role that is even negligible as far as creating the features or gene networks to make those features in the first place. IE

SET (standard evolution theory or adaptive evolution my emphasis) explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080[/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you please explain to me how I have quote mine4d.

You have changed the claims of what the paper states. They are saying that natural selection is not dominant in the production of genetic complexity. That is not the same as saying that natural selection plays a minimal part in the adaptive evolution of a lineage.

It is a really simply concept, yet you refuse to understand it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you please explain to me how I have quote mine4d.

Yes, I have several times previously. For some reason you ignored those posts. If you're actually interested you can go back and re-read them.

I also disagree that with you in saying it is false that the papers I am using are not talking about the main part of evolution which is basically Darwin's theory of evolution through adaptations of natural selection acting on random mutations.

This would be more convincing if you could actually address it with quotes from the actual papers backing up your point of view. But no, all we get is that you feel that my interpretation is wrong. Thanks for sharing, I guess.

So once again I will post exactly what I have been posting

Again, this paper does nothing to support your faith that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop." If you're going to post random stuff I have no doubt that you can find ones which discuss evolution in general. It just seems you're having a difficult time finding any which both support the claim you made and apply to evolution as a whole rather than just specific subsets of it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I cant see any errors that I have made. You havnt pointed them out. The ones you have I have replied and provided support for what I said. As for the nature article why do you only rely to this one and not the others that clearly state that natural selection is insufficient and has inability and is even not necessary.

Because as multiple people have told you, those article are talking about the evolution of very specific features, not evolution as a whole. Please try to pay attention.

 

[stevevw]

Yep, and the quotes back that up. Your point?

Can you show me those quotes. What is it exactly said. Because I went back to when you first claimed I did this and I cant see anything wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Because as multiple people have told you, those article are talking about the evolution of very specific features, not evolution as a whole. Please try to pay attention.

What else is there besides the evolution of complex gene structures

 

[Loudmouth]

What else is there besides the evolution of complex gene structures

The evolution of limbs, metabolism, lungs, hearts, eyes, brains . . . the list goes on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you show me those quotes. What is it exactly said. Because I went back to when you first claimed I did this and I cant see anything wrong.

Let's say I find a quote that says, "the combustion in a car engine can have very minimal effect on the speed of a car coasting down a hill".

I cite that reference, and then claim that this supports the idea that the combustion of gasoline in the car engine has minimal effect on the velocity of any car.

Would that be an accurate use of that reference?

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you show me those quotes. What is it exactly said.

Post 1386 has a nice summary of the backpedaling.

Because I went back to when you first claimed I did this and I cant see anything wrong.

If you feel you can justify your behavior that's on you.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I have several times previously. For some reason you ignored those posts. If you're actually interested you can go back and re-read them.

Yes please give me the post number and I will address it. Like I said I also have to study so I may have missed some posts. Because I am replying to several people at once Its hard to keep up.

This would be more convincing if you could actually address it with quotes from the actual papers backing up your point of view. But no, all we get is that you feel that my interpretation is wrong. Thanks for sharing, I guess.

Actually I did the first time you made the claim. I posted the beginnings of 2 papers with some other sections both stating that they were addressing the theory and the basic tenets. I just posted one of them again in this very post with the paper from nature. How did you not see it. It states that Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? in its heading. Then talks about
An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

It then talks about how the story of dawins theory goes in which it call this SET or (standard evolutionary theory)
The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

It then starts to give reasons why they disagree with this version and that non adaptive forces are morte responsible players in how life changes.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Again, this paper does nothing to support your faith that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop." If you're going to post random stuff I have no doubt that you can find ones which discuss evolution in general. It just seems you're having a difficult time finding any which both support the claim you made and apply to evolution as a whole rather than just specific subsets of it.

Or could it be that I already have several times and your just not getting it. The nature paper is talking about the same non adaptive forces and processes as the others papers which that I have posted and state that natural selection is insufficient, has inability, is not necessary, and promotes the opposite if you bothered to read them. They are not talking about different mechanisms. You just have to join the dots which seems so hard for some to accept and do. In fact because they are all talking about the same thing it shows how different scientists are all agreeing. This is the quote I posted with the other paper you claimed was not supporting what I said.

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily
through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.

If you bothered to read the paper you would have seen that it is full of quotes that are questioning natural selection and the main tenets of evolution. IE

This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.

But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.

Thus, although the idea that regulatory modules with functional significance in today's organisms can only have arisen via natural selection is seductive, it remains to be determined how the stepwise alterations necessary for the construction of genetic pathways come about.

Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximize the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.

Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.

If complexity, modularity, evolvability, and/or robustness are entirely products of adaptive processes, then where is the evidence? What are the expected patterns of evolution of such properties in the absence of selection, and what types of observations would be acceptable as a falsification of a null, nonadaptive hypothesis?

But here a quote that states exactly what I said in negligible.

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So how does negligible, insufficient, not even necessary or natural selection promotes the opposite of functional gene networks not equate to what I said. Add to this the paper is mentioning evolution as a whole or the main core functions of evolution mentioning such things as evolvability, modularity, robustness, genetic pathways, development pathways, genomic architecture, gene structures. If this isn't about the main functions of evolution then what is. take these out and you have very little.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes please give me the post number and I will address it.

Post 1353

Actually I did the first time you made the claim. I posted the beginnings of 2 papers with some other sections both stating that they were addressing the theory and the basic tenets.

Nope, see above.

I just posted one of them again in this very post with the paper from nature. How did you not see it. It states that Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Answer : "Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental."

If that's the best you can find to support your claim, I don't really have to say much more.

Or could it be that I already have several times and your just not getting it. The nature paper is talking about the same non adaptive forces and processes as the others papers which that I have posted and state that natural selection is insufficient, has inability, is not necessary, and promotes the opposite if you bothered to read them.

I did have pointed out repeatedly how these quotes are taken out of context.

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes

I've highlighted the important part you're trying to pretend doesn't exist - the fact that statements like this are qualified to apply to very specific processes and not evolution as a whole.

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

This is outright quote-mining. The weird phrasing should be a clue. As should be the fact that the paper plainly says things like "It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change". If the author really thought that selection did nothing that's an awfully strange claim to make.

It is examples like this which make it very hard to take your claims seriously. I don't know if your trying to fool us or yourself, but it isn't a good way to gain any credibility.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I cant see any errors that I have made. ...

Your lack of knowledge of English and logic is not my problem, stevevw.
It is not a surprise given the the amount of errors made by you and many irrelevant papers that you have cited.

Everyone else here can see that you are wrong, e.g. "not dominant" does not mean "negligible and/or minimal" so all I can do is point out this basic fact yet again and again and again !
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
19 July 2016 stevevw: Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
21 July 2016 stevevw: The hint of cherry picking sources to suit your case even when they do not support you.
21 July 2016 stevevw: Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

 

[RealityCheck01]

havnt I already supplied this evidence here

No you have not:
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
19 July 2016 stevevw: Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
21 July 2016 stevevw: The hint of cherry picking sources to suit your case even when they do not support you.
21 July 2016 stevevw: Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

First of all how did you equate that the paper is saying that natural selection is 50% of the contribution.

Why are you misquoting me, stevevw?

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics states known biology ("natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution") and that natural selection is not "quantitatively dominant". This means that natural selection is responsible for < 50% of evolution, not that natural selection can be neglected or is "minimal".

(my emphasis added)
Dominant means > 50%. Not dominant means < 50%. This needs a !

 

[stevevw]

Try again. As others have correctly determined, my claim is not that the papers are wrong. It is that you're attempting to use them to prove things they don't even talk about.

Just found this paper in checking back through posts. So if you think that I am wrong in what I am pointing out about these papers then please tell me 1) what I am referring to so that I am clear you understand 2) and what the papers are referring to.

 

[stevevw]

In the ways pointed out specifically in posts you've ignored

No I havnt ignored the posts. Ive disagreed with the posts which is a different thing. You think that because I have disagreed that somehow I have ignored the post. I have disagreed because I think that the post is referring to the majority of natural selections ability to evolve gene networks which is what the papers say. Our disagreement is what does gene networks represent. You say that papers refer to specific cases like they are isolated cases. I am saying that they are talking about any evolution of genetic networks. Remember gene networks by nature are complex. there isn't any simple gene networks. In fact one of the papers states that it is referring to all complex organisms above the single celled organisms. I have pointed this out and it seems it is you who are denying what the papers are saying. Its there in black and white. It states that one would have to question what the ability and use of natural selection being able to evolve all complex life IE

But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So how is this not referring to natural sections ability to create all complex life.

What does each it refer to in this sentence? The problem is that you're finding quotes about particular instances where natural selection isn't the best explanation and pretending that means that natural selection never does anything in any case whatsoever.

No as from the section from the paper above I am finding entire papers. Read the paper it is full of quotes and references stating the same as what I have posted above. It is not particular incidences but about all eukaryote life which is complex anyway. If you claim it is about specific isolated incidences then explain how that is, point out the sections that state this instead of denying it without showing how it is so. Its easy to just say no without any support.

Yeah, my bad for actually responding to what you wrote. But what do you mean by "one quote from those papers"? I responded to a number of quote-mines from several papers.

No what I was referring to was when you asked for support about what I said that natural selection was minimal and negligible. You focused on one quote that said quantifiable and stated that didn't mean what I said. But ignored the rest of the quote which also said insufficient and unnecessary which is the same as minimal and negligible. IE unnecessary means not needed, worthless, useless and insufficient means not enough; inadequate, limited, restricted.

Yeah, it is my fault I didn't respond to a post which hadn't been written yet. Your point?

You did respond because the quote I am referring to was the one you were responding to. IE

stevevw said: ↑

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant,
KCfromNC said
"Not dominant" is very different from your claim. Try again.
Stevevw said
This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
KCfromNC said
Same problem as above. Try again.

As I said insufficient and not necessary mean more or less minimal and negligible. The reference is also talking about gene network topologies, not a specific gene network or a specific situation in one organism but gene network topologies in general.

 

[stevevw]

Read what I wrote on 18 July 2016:

So I have read what you have said on the 18/7/16 and cant see how this is even valid. For example you made a claim that imaginary non adaptive forces cannot explain anything. We have proven that they can beyond doubt and even KCfromNC admits that by saying non adaptive forces were applying to specific aspects of how natural selection works with genetic networks. So you have been shown to have been wrong there already. I never said evolution was abiogenesis. I dont want to go into the rest of that post as that is taken the debate away from what we are talking about which is non adaptive forces and natural selection into several other directions which will only derail and confuse the debate.

So back to what I was saying that I have posted several papers which clearly state that natural selection is as I said minimal and negligible. In fact one of the papers actual says what I said word for word that adaptive evolution which is evolution working under natural selection and random mutations is negligible. But other descriptions are natural selection is insufficient means not enough; inadequate, limited, restricted and unnecessary means not needed, worthless, useless. These meanings support what I said in minimal and negligible.

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[stevevw]

You have changed the claims of what the paper states. They are saying that natural selection is not dominant in the production of genetic complexity. That is not the same as saying that natural selection plays a minimal part in the adaptive evolution of a lineage.

It is a really simply concept, yet you refuse to understand it.

No you refuse to accept that the paper I posted was only one of many which were all saying the same thing. You refuse to acknowledge that those other papers elaborated on what natural selection was capable of and the description they also placed on natural selection ie

* whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient
* natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity
* natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control
* If complexity, modularity, evolvability, and/or robustness are entirely products of adaptive processes, then where is the evidence?


* As stated before insufficient means not enough; inadequate, limited, restricted and unnecessary means not needed, worthless, useless.
* The paper saying natural selection promotes the opposite of function gene networks goes beyond proving what I stated that natural section is negligible and minimal. Its actually claiming its worse than that.
* But heres the cruncher, the papers I have posted even say exactly what I stated in natural selection or (adaptive involvement) being negligible.

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[stevevw]

Post 1386 has a nice summary of the backpedaling.

I havnt changed in the least. When I have said natural selection is minimal or negligible that doesn't say I am stating that natural selection doesn't happen. So what is the difference in saying its does happen but its not dominate. Not dominate can mean anything form minimal to negligible. But what is the problem anyway I have supplied support for all those definitions of natural selection because that is what the evidence states. So it is not me who is changing anything. I am merely supplying the peer reviewed support for how the papers describe natural selection when stating what its ability is for evolving gene networks.

But what about going way back before you claim I changed from not dominant to minimal and negligible. Going back to may or June or even earlier if you want. I stated that natural selection played a minor role or diminished role or not much role. You will find I have mentioned many quotes about natural selection from non dominant to negligible because that is what the evidence states not me. So if you want to accuse me of something and compare what I have said do it comprehensively rather than picking certain quotes here and there because to me thats more about quote mining than what you are accusing me of.

The thing is all the descriptions I have used for natural selection based on the evidence are negative no matter which way you look at it. So if there is one thing that comes out of this I have certainly shown that at least there are many papers stating that natural selection is anything from not dominate to doing the opposite of evolving functional gene networks and everything in between.

Jun 30, 2016 #1270
The non adaptive forces work against selection so natural selection plays a minor role in how life can change. It is more likely to happen from non selective and adaptive methods such as those I have posted before
Citation needed.
May 30, 2016 #1114
What about what I said about natural selection back in may
They question the role of natural selection and either diminish it to the side lines or say that it may not play much of a role at all.

If you feel you can justify your behavior that's on you.

I dont feel , I just did and its totally valid as I have just shown that I have been consistent with my description of natural selection over a very long period of time based on the evidence I have supplied.[/QUOTE]