The fact that it covers any part of evolution at all means that your claim that natural selection is negligible isn't even something your own source agrees with.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where did the laws of nature come from?
- Thread starter Jfrsmth
- Start date
The fact that it covers any part of evolution at all means that your claim that natural selection is negligible isn't even something your own source agrees with.
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No you have a short memory and it is you who are focusing on certain things. If you check you will see throughout the debate I have posted full sections and not single words and I have explained the rational for why I believe the papers are saying these things. I have used other papers with large sections and with explanations to also support this. I have only started to focus on the words because you claimed the words didn't mean what they said. I have had to get specific because you are avoiding the truth.
The truth is all you have done is reject that support mostly through your own words with short statements. When you have used the papers you have cited one line in all those papers to prove your point and continually ignored the many I have posted. Here are some of the many explanations I have posted in support of the quotes with other papers that also support the quotes. In all I have probably posted 20 or 30 full length pages of quotes, long sections of papers and explanations to go with them.
Here are some long explanations responding to others which you would have read. Some of them are responding to me about your post
Aug 5, 2016 #1551
Aug 6, 2016 #1552
Aug 6, 2016 #1556
Jul 26, 2016 #1431
Now heres some that were directed at you from me with long explanations and plenty of support froma variety of sources.
Aug 6, 2016 #1559
This paper uses the paper from Nature to support the paper from Michael Lynch and I have gone into another long explanation for why.
Jul 22, 2016 #1396
This was one of the posts when we first started to debate the topic. thats when I was explaining things and using long explanations with other papers as you were asking for citations. I initially went into great detail to explain things to you. As time has gone on it has become more specific.
Jun 30, 2016 #1269
Here is another long explanation, these were leading up to where we started to talk about natural selection or adaptive evolution.
Jul 2, 2016 #1272
This is an example where I have specifically stated that the whole paper matters and have explained why.
Jul 30, 2016 #1474
That is right and the entire paper matters. The section that quote comes from is describing population genetics and the role of adaptive and non adaptive forces. No one has said that natural selection has a role. It is the degree of that role and the particular role it plays overall.
In population genetics there are four forces natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. Three of these forces are non adaptive because they are not a function of fitness. So the degree to which natural selection has played a role is subject and relative to the power of the other three forces hence the descriptions that have been given to it previously named.
The author is merely describing how natural selection has been established in the theory that Darwin has made and the elaborate genotype frequencies that have been attributed to it. he isn't saying that the evidence for this has been proven but merely describing what evolution is saying about it. Because he later goes on to say that those very genotype or gene networks are not the product of natural selection but more likely non adaptive forces if you read the whole paper. He is using some of the papers that have been written by other authors about the role of natural selection and non adaptive forces and then comparing the evidence. He is showing that natural selections role is not as great as some have made out in the light of things like population genetics, developmental biology and genomics.
The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes.
These are only a few and there are many more. So once again by check up on your claims I am only quote mining or using embolden single words we find the exact opposite and therefore your claims have been proven unfounded.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
There you go again trying to twist things with what the papers say. Now you are doing what you claim I was doing in changing things to suit your argument. As I have said 10 times now I have never said that natural selection doesn't play a role in evolution.
The question is what role and how much. You are trying to make the argument all or nothing for natural selections ability for evolution which is an argument based on having only two choices and is a fallacy. Your saying because it mentions that natural is part of evolution it therefore applies to everything within evolution and negates any other statements that may say that natural selection has an inability when it comes to some of the aspects of evolution such as genome architecture, transcriptional networks and developmental pathways for which the paper clearly says natural selection is insufficient and unable to evolve.
So here is a simple question. If you say that the mention of any evolution means that natural selection is able to evolve anything in evolution does the mention that it is insufficient and unnecessary to evolve say gene networks give it some inability as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes but a major force for what. Its not a major force for the evolution of genome architecture, transcription networks, developmental evolution, cellular networks and complex networks as the papers clearly say this as you have already agreed with. So the papers specify what natural selection cant do. As far as its major role in evolution it mentions it could be anything but its not complex gene networks thats for sure.
My original statement said natural selection had minimal and negligible involvement for how life develops. You just agreed with me by including developmental evolution. But lets be clear the things you have mentioned are a big part of evolution. The papers state numerous and many aspects of evolution through developmental evolution, cellular and transcriptional networks and genomic architecture. Even genomic architecture is talking about the structures of complete genomes.
So you cant remember saying this
stevevw said: ↑
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399
KCfromNC said
Seriously? Come on, if we're all supposed to pretend that this isn't a discussion of your religious faith you're going to have to try a bit harder than a paper written by someone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics. Do you even read this stuff or just do keyword searches and hope for the best?
You seem to be making a lot of claims but luckily I go back to check to see if they are correct. Most of the time I find they are not. This paper is about the design of bird feathers and the way respiratory systems in birds is a unique mechanism that requires many components being in place at the same time making it hard for evolution through small steps to evolve. So I dont know how you derived thermodynamics out of it. Anyway it seems we are hitting a brick wall here and going around in circles with counter claims so it may not be worth continuing to go over the same old ground.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Stevevw, this is not a criticism, but rather an observation. From your sources you seem to be picking specific phrases that appear to support your position, while ignoring the context of the overall message. Whether intentional or not, you are quote-mining. What the papers you are citing are details and making suggestions, which is quite common in all fields of science. You are giving the impression to me that the authors of those papers are providing information contrary to evolution, they are not, they are only arguing details.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Well I,m glad you said phrases as KCfromNC was saying words which was not true. But its funny you should mention quote mining and using small sections of teh papers to support a stand. As far as I can see those arguing that the papers are supporting natural selections ability are quote one sentence for their entire evidence whereas I have been supplying large sections from many papers with long explanations so there's nothing out of context here. So perhaps you better apply your criteria for quote mining and out of context to the other side to be fair.
You came into this debate late so you have missed the bulk of what has already been explained. If you look at post #1642 above you will see some of that earlier detail where I had gone into great detail about explaining my position and what I thought the papers were saying. The papers are questioning the role of natural selection which is a central tenet of evolution so they are providing information contrary to some of the central ideas of evolution. If natural selection is not as dominate for evolving the wide range of situations many supporters of evolution claim then it does cast doubt on the mechanisms of evolution. The authors of these papers even state this ie,
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
I dont need to post much more than this as it covers what the paper is talking about. It clearly states that it is challenging how evolution is understood by adaptive evolution through natural selection and that other non adaptive mechanisms explain better how life develops and changes. These other non adaptive forces were and are relegated out of the picture to minor players of consequences of adaptive evolution rather than causes. The paper is saying its the other way around, these non adaptive forces are the cause of evolution and natural selection plays a minor role. Sure the ideas in these papers may be hypothesis proposed but I am having trouble even having that recognized at the moment. I definitely think there is a resistance as the papers are saying where some want to hold onto the traditionalists view that natural selection is all powerful and capable of evolving everything.
So heres the closing comments on Micheal Lynches paper so you dont think I,m quote mining.
Closing Comments
Because it deals with observations on historical outcomes, frequently in the face of incomplete information, the field of evolution attracts significantly more speculation than the average area of science. Nevertheless, a substantial body of well tested theory provides the basis for understanding the pathways that are open to evolutionary exploration in various population-genetic contexts. Four of the major buzzwords in biology today are complexity, modularity, evolvability, and robustness, and it is often claimed that ill-defined mechanisms not previously appreciated by evolutionary biologists must be invoked to explain the existence of emergent properties that putatively enhance the long-term success of extant taxa. This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. 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.
The field of population genetics is technically demanding, and it is well known that most biologists abhor all things mathematical. However, the details do matter in the field of evolutionary biology. As discussed above, many aspects of biology that superficially appear to have adaptive roots almost certainly owe their existence in part to nonadaptive processes. Such conclusions would be difficult to reach without a formal population-genetic framework, but they equally rely on observations from molecular, genomic, and cell biology. Such conclusions also raise significant challenges. 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?
This tone of dissent is not meant to be disrespectful. The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes. A similar point has been made previously by Kauffman (3), although his conclusions were derived from models far removed from mainstream population genetics.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
So its clear they are talking about a major aspect of evolution which is the engine room for how gene networks can evolve.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ature-come-from.7928975/page-83#post-69995050
Yes, as I said, they are digging in on details. I admit that my area of expertise is not biology and especially not genetics. But don't misunderstand, I am not ignorant on the subject either. Nevertheless, I generally stay away from such topics. But when I do participate I add information that I am familiar with. I made a post a day or so ago to you asking your position of evolution, but I did not see a reply. I'm just kind of curious.
As for what I think the major factor in evolution is, I favor "isolation of populations" and "abrupt environment changes".
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
First, you have said many times and at great length (Matthew 6:7) that there is more to evolution than natural selection, and you have cited peer-reviewed papers to support this assertion. However, you have never explained what inferences you draw from this. So far as I understand it, the fact that there is more to evolution than natural selection does not change the essential facts of the transmutation of species and the descent of all living things from a small number of common ancestors.
All this detailed demonstration that natural selection is not the whole of evolution does not appear to be leading anywhere or producing anything important: 'The mountains were in labour and Jove was frightened, but they brought forth a mouse'. Would you like to explain what we are to infer from your argument and from the papers you have cited to support it.
Second, last week, in post 1543, I argued that the long history of the Earth (which you appear to accept), and the observed fossil record, imply that modern living things must be descended from evolutionary ancestors of different kinds.
I know that I asked you to think carefully about this post before replying, but eleven days is long enough for careful thought, and you have been able to contribute several long posts on other topics during this time. Would you therefore care to comment on the points that I raised in post 1543?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Sorry I have had to reply to several people at the same time as well as have time to study and do assignments. So I will not get to every post. I do think about things and do research and that is why its hard for me to have the time.
As for the fossil record I thought I had replied to someone asking the same question if not you. I am glad you said that the fossil record implies that modern creatures must have descended from evolutionary ancestors. Just like with any observational evidence we can assume things that are not true such as when someone is convicted on an eye witness account or the circumstantial evidence points in a certain direction only to find that the genetic evidence shows something different.
The fossil record is not a good way to base a theory on. Much of the testing done with proteins shows that there is little evidence that mutations can create new functional sequences which would be a common occurrence if evolution were true. As I have shown with the papers on natural selection and the evidence for non adaptive forces being more responsible for how life develops many of the different features we see can be just variations of an existing genetic code and not the result of extraordinary circumstances that evolution through adaption claims. We are only just discovering the potential for what our DNA can and has been able to produce with sequencing.
There is a lot of evidence in genomics showing that the tree of life has many contradictions for what would be a trace back to a common ancestor. It shows more of a forest of life with many trunks and many of the distant branches are linked with common genes. So this type of evidence is more solid as it is subject to testing and not subjective interpretations of observational evidence. There have been many occasions where people have interpreted variations within the same type of creatures as a transition and new species.
The meaning of species is debatable and there are several versions of what it means. Even the field taxonomy uses descriptions like splitters and lumpers for the different camps which interpret the fossil evidence as either variations of the same types or new species. There is common decent of life as with dogs for example that stem back to a common wolf type creature. But I am not sure about all life tracing back to a universal common ancestor. The Cambrian explosion shows the sudden appearance of a wide variety of complex creatures. They would have stemmed from many different branches in the tree of life. But there is little trace of where they came from. Most then disappear out of the records. This is a fairly common occurrence in the records some maybe the fossil record is something that can be interpreted more than one way.
Upvote
0
What things? The things you actually wrote? How tricky of me.
And again you're responding to things I never said. Seems to be a pattern, and it shows me I'm wasting my time. If you want to discuss things that happened only in your head you don't need me around.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You said it was negligible. And then used a paper which listed it first among four fundamental forces driving evolution. And now you're complaining that I'm twisting things by pointing out this simple set of facts. Which one is wrong? What is your point, exactly?
Am I? Where have I used the phrase "all or nothing"?
You'll have to ask whoever is saying that.
Again, you seem to be very anxious to make up things I've never said in order to make you look reasonable. Doesn't do much to make me want to dig through all of these quotes to try and figure out how you're doing it to them as well.
Upvote
0
Why are you asking me? Didn't you read the whole paper before pretending it supported your claim that natural selection was negligible?
Could be, but if you actually read your own sources rather than skipping to any sentence which had the word negligible in it you might actually learn what your own sources are saying.
What else did it say? You want to come clean with the full quote or should I? I've mentioned a number of times that if you want to admit your initial claim was wrong that I'm not going to stop you. You shouldn't stop you either.
Restoring context :
Since you seem to be a big fan of bold-face text, I'll correct your misunderstanding using it.
As I've pointed out multiple times, the fact you can't even seems to understand a few sentences of basic English make it really hard to take you seriously when you claim that you've found some hidden meaning in a scientific paper which is going to undo a hundred plus years of Biology.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Here's my full quote :
"When you ask us to ignore key words in your own quote to make them make sense it's probably time for a rethink of what you're hoping to accomplish here."
I appreciate the irony of acting upset that others accuse one of pulling single words out of context when doing exactly that with the word "words".
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes all the things I wrote and not just certain words or small sections you choose to focus on. Its hard to keep track of where you are going with this debate as you keep changing the subject. My response was to your claim that I was focusing on certain words and taking things out of context remember. Instead of replying to the whole post which explained that I have already made long explanations you focus on the first sentence only and respond to that out of context. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing by focusing on certain words which is quote mining.
KCfromNC said: ↑
By bold-facing and focusing on only certain words in your quote rather than taking all the words in context.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
There you go again taking things out of context by only using the first sentence of my whole post or in this case the first 7 words. Thats why I have to keep going back to show that you changing things all the time. I asked you what the paper was referring to when you quoted the paper when it said that natural selection was the first of four major forces driving evolution. As you can see with the rest of my post I explained that I knew what the paper though natural selection was or wasn't so it put into context the question I asked. So I was asking you what you thought it was. But somehow you have turned that around to make out like I didnt know by leaving out the rest of what I said. Thats why you keep changing and only focusing on part of what is said which is deceiving and taking things out of context.
KCfromNC said: ↑
The papers do not agree with you. You claim that natural selection is negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. The paper names is first among four major forces driving evolution.
Stevevw said
Yes but a major force for what. Its not a major force for the evolution of genome architecture, transcription networks, developmental evolution, cellular networks and complex networks as the papers clearly say this as you have already agreed with. So the papers specify what natural selection cant do. As far as its major role in evolution it mentions it could be anything but its not complex gene networks thats for sure.
What like how you keep referring to the one and only sentence that says natural selection is one of four forces that drives evolution lol. Um it seems a bit hypocritical to me. That is exactly what I was saying how some set a high criteria for those who disagree with darwins theory by making all these restrictions and objections but allow themselves to get away with anything.
As I pointed out to you in the previous post #1642 that I have posted comprehensive explanations and large sections of the paper so I do understand its context. There is only one quote that uses the word negligible and its in the same paragraph as the one section that you keep referring to about natural selection being one of four forces of evolution. So because you were focusing on that so much I then stated that just after that section it refers to natural selection being negligible when it comes to developmental evolution. So in fairness we should be including all the paragraph and look at it in context.
Thats unless you only want to focus on the part that you keep referring to and use it out of context like you are accusing me. But if we do bring it in then it states that we can only use a negligible levels of natural selection for developing gene networks in evolution. Luckily the rest of the paper also refers to natural selection as insufficient, unnecessary, having inability to evolve gene networks, transcription networks, and genomic architecture unless you think they are all out of context as well. But I think taken all together they seem to support each other to definitely say that natural selection is suspect when it comes to evolving complexity.
It seems you want to accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. So if its OK for you to use that small section of the paper surely its OK for me to use several sections together that all say the same thing more or less. Its now getting to the stage where I am beginning to think you are purposely trying to evade the truth.
Thats funny and ironic considering what you did with my posts as explained at the beginning of this post. Its also ironic considering your refusal to focus on exact words in the papers. But lets see if your referring to that quote I said
"Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop."
It still uses the word negligible so whats the problem. I have posted this 20 odd times and have nothing to hide.
But speaking of admitting I have asked many many times how my quote isn't supported by the paper when it states.
many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement, (natural selection) emphasis added
If you disagree with this then please explain what the above statemnet means so we can move on.
How does that relate to the post where you said the paper on bird wings and respiratory systems was about thermodynamics. Better still how does any evidence that may question something in science be thrown out because it contradicts what science has said about something. That is the whole idea of science to challenge existing ideas with new evidence. Are you saying because something may contradict and question a long held belief it must automatically be wrong. Some of our greatest discoveries have come because someone challenged a long held theory with something that proved it wrong. IE Einstein and Newton.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
There you go again taking things out of context by only using the first sentence of my whole post or in this case the first 7 words. Thats why I have to keep going back to show that you changing things all the time. I asked you what the paper was referring to when you quoted the paper when it said that natural selection was the first of four major forces driving evolution. As you can see with the rest of my post I explained that I knew what the paper though natural selection was or wasn't so it put into context the question I asked. So I was asking you what you thought it was. But somehow you have turned that around to make out like I didnt know by leaving out the rest of what I said. Thats why you keep changing and only focusing on part of what is said which is deceiving and taking things out of context.
KCfromNC said: ↑
The papers do not agree with you. You claim that natural selection is negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. The paper names is first among four major forces driving evolution.
Stevevw said
Yes but a major force for what. Its not a major force for the evolution of genome architecture, transcription networks, developmental evolution, cellular networks and complex networks as the papers clearly say this as you have already agreed with. So the papers specify what natural selection cant do. As far as its major role in evolution it mentions it could be anything but its not complex gene networks thats for sure.
What like how you keep referring to the one and only sentence that says natural selection is one of four forces that drives evolution lol. Um it seems a bit hypocritical to me. That is exactly what I was saying how some set a high criteria for those who disagree with darwins theory by making all these restrictions and objections but allow themselves to get away with anything.
As I pointed out to you in the previous post #1642 that I have posted comprehensive explanations and large sections of the paper so I do understand its context. There is only one quote that uses the word negligible and its in the same paragraph as the one section that you keep referring to about natural selection being one of four forces of evolution. So because you were focusing on that so much I then stated that just after that section it refers to natural selection being negligible when it comes to developmental evolution. So in fairness we should be including all the paragraph and look at it in context.
Thats unless you only want to focus on the part that you keep referring to and use it out of context like you are accusing me. But if we do bring it in then it states that we can only use a negligible levels of natural selection for developing gene networks in evolution. Luckily the rest of the paper also refers to natural selection as insufficient, unnecessary, having inability to evolve gene networks, transcription networks, and genomic architecture unless you think they are all out of context as well. But I think taken all together they seem to support each other to definitely say that natural selection is suspect when it comes to evolving complexity.
It seems you want to accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. So if its OK for you to use that small section of the paper surely its OK for me to use several sections together that all say the same thing more or less. Its now getting to the stage where I am beginning to think you are purposely trying to evade the truth.
Thats funny and ironic considering what you did with my posts as explained at the beginning of this post. Its also ironic considering your refusal to focus on exact words in the papers. But lets see if your referring to that quote I said
"Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop."
It still uses the word negligible so whats the problem. I have posted this 20 odd times and have nothing to hide.
But speaking of admitting I have asked many many times how my quote isn't supported by the paper when it states.
many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement, (natural selection) emphasis added
If you disagree with this then please explain what the above statemnet means so we can move on.
In your view, what does natural selection do?
Is your position that natural selection cant increase complexity?
Where is god in evolution?
Upvote
0
Steve, have you considered whether long rambling stream-of-consciousness screeds strewn with semantic quibbles are really the best way to get your point across?
Why not organize your thoughts and put a decent argument together?
When I was in software development we used to tell new programmers that the code should not be written until the software design was finished. The keyboard is the first step in implementation, it comes after design. Your posts remind me of the code written by programmers whose first thought on getting an assignment was to head for the keyboard and start coding... Those guys wrote much better code when they learned to separate the design process from the code-writing process, and came to see code-writing as the translation of a completed design into a particular language.
Come to think of it, programming is an excellent preparation for philosophical argument and critical thinking in general. Good thing they've put it onto (into?) the curriculum.
BTW, I think the papers you've quoted from are, by-and-large, on the button; it is about time the standard evolutionary model was expanded to take a wider and more nuanced view than the direct effects of whack-a-mole natural selection on genes. Developmental plasticity clearly does guide the appearance of adaptive traits that precede evolution; developmental bias does narrow the field of adaptive variation; and environmental interactions do feedback into developmental plasticity. These things have been individually known for some time, but there's inertia in the system; expansions, extensions, and new syntheses must go through their internship before consensus acceptance - and rightly so.
But for all the non-adaptive genomic variation and its effects on adaptive traits, natural selection remains the means by which adaptive traits are established in the population genome. I don't really understand your problem with it.
Upvote
0
8 August 2016 stevevw: Do you understand that quote mining is definitely misleading and close to lying, e.g. removing "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" from what you quoted from Lynch?
seems to be that you are happy to quote mine (lie about) that section in Lynch's paper by cutting the first sentence: Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution.
11 August 2016 stevevw: Cite and quote the many statements where where Lynch explicitly writes natural selection is "minor or insufficient".
And the many explanations just from me that the papers you cited do not say what you imagine they state,
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..."
!
etc.
seems to be that you are happy to quote mine (lie about) that section in Lynch's paper by cutting the first sentence: Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution.
11 August 2016 stevevw: Cite and quote the many statements where where Lynch explicitly writes natural selection is "minor or insufficient".
And the many explanations just from me that the papers you cited do not say what you imagine they state,
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..."
!etc.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
As far as what I have read and understand, natural selection doesn't play much of a role in how complex gene networks are formed. The paper from Lynch speaks about natural selection not playing much of a role if any at all in how all complex life came about from single celled life.
Michael Lynch states in his paper
Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. 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 the paper is stating that there is no evidence that natural selection can produce things like new organ, complexity and new species through blind adaptations that have no direction. The question remains what can natural selection do. According to the paper from nature.com I posted natural selection may play a secondary role of refining what has already been made in a process know as developmental bias where organisms features are developed along specific developmental pathways.
In our view, this concept — developmental bias — helps to explain how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species. For example, cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi are more closely related to other cichlids in Lake Malawi than to those in Lake Tanganyika, but species in both lakes have strikingly similar body shapes4. In each case, some fish have large fleshy lips, others protruding foreheads, and still others short, robust lower jaws.
SET (standard evolution theory) 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
So natural selection will refine what has already been developed from a more directed and set process in development and doesn't create gene and transcriptional networks, genomic architecture and genetic complexity.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,846
- 1,701
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No I had already posted that section several times now if you check my previous posts. I have moved onto the later section which talks about natural selections inability and being negligible because some like KCfromNC and now it seems like yourself are only focusing on this one small section in the entire paper. So it seems that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. The difference is I have quoted a number of sections of the paper and other papers that all speak about the same thing which therefore shows that these quotes are in context and are correct. In fact the entire paper speaks about natural selections inability to evolve complexity. Its just your refusal to acknowledge this.
So a simple question what does this mean.
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.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/full/nrg2192.html
Upvote
0
Similar threads
