Why evolution isn't scientific

[pat34lee]

Evolution has both.
It has rules: the mechanics of genetics.
It has goals: survive and reproduce.

Actually, evolution has neither.
Genetics guards against change.
So does sexual reproduction.
This is why we have seen stasis in nature for
the past few thousand years of written history.

Survive and reproduce is an individual trait,
not a collective or evolutionary one.

Counting on something like mutations to drive
evolution gives you about a 99% road to death,
as mutations are basically always degenerative.

 

[pat34lee]

Errrr................................. that is exactly what happens in nature dude.
The traits of those creatures that survive and reproduce more, are "given more weight" then those that don't.

When using a GA, or a breeding program, we get to choose which traits we want to focus on.
It's how we breed chiuwawa's, eatable banana's, huge pumpkins, brussel's sprouts,...
None of which would have existed under natural selection.

Natural selection tends to select for those closest to the genetic norm.
Animals and even insects have mating rituals that must be adhered to
or the female will not allow the male to inseminate her.

As for breeding, isn't that just what evolution teaches, that all of those
specialized organisms would be selected for sooner or later? By chance.

And in reality, we have a universe with physics, a planet, a sun feeding it energy and biological life that reproduces with variation.

Destructive forces and limited variation do not equal evolution.
Otherwise, Chernobyl and Fukushima should be the next Edens.

Those with highest fitness score are selected for reproduction. During reproduction, random mutations will be applied.

Leave the browser open for some time.
Soon you'll see cars finish the track at top speeds.

Natural evolution should not care about wheels or aerodynamics.
You should be getting square wheels, no wheels, wheels that don't
fit on the tracks, etc. Even if you get better wheels in one generation,
each successive generation has a 50/50 chance of erasing it.

 

[Speedwell]

Natural selection tends to select for those closest to the genetic norm.
Animals and even insects have mating rituals that must be adhered to
or the female will not allow the male to inseminate her.

As for breeding, isn't that just what evolution teaches, that all of those
specialized organisms would be selected for sooner or later? By chance.



Destructive forces and limited variation do not equal evolution.
Otherwise, Chernobyl and Fukushima should be the next Edens.



Natural evolution should not care about wheels or aerodynamics.
You should be getting square wheels, no wheels, wheels that don't
fit on the tracks, etc. Even if you get better wheels in one generation,
each successive generation has a 50/50 chance of erasing it.

You seem to be under the impression that a mutation is expressed directly in the phenotype. Have I misunderstood you?

 

[Kylie]

you said that you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 insetad of 12345 evolution will be false. this is exactly what we found. you cant play with this.

Oh rubbish.

Using this logic, you can bring up anything about evolution you don't understand, claim it invalidates evolution, and then refuse to listen to any attempt at a rational explanation.

I made it very clear that I would accept evidence against evolution, so long as the evidence was actual VALID evidence and not just someone who doesn't understand it. Your misconceptions and ignorance of evolution do not constitute evidence against it.

 

[pat34lee]

You seem to be under the impression that a mutation is expressed directly in the phenotype. Have I misunderstood you?

Once it has been passed on at least once, yes.
If a mutation stays in the gametes, you will never get evolution.

 

[46AND2]

If a mutation stays in the gametes, you will never get evolution.

Um..wut?

 

[xianghua]

So no, finding tetrapods in the devonian a little older then the oldest tetrapods we knew about, is not a problem.
If you would find tetrapods in pre-devonian rock, that'ld be something else.

realy? so where is the limit that we can push back the first tetrapod?. give me a number.

 

[xianghua]

Feathers would pose a serious problem for the theory of evolution

and your evidence to back up this claim is?...

 

[xianghua]

Oh rubbish.

Using this logic, you can bring up anything about evolution you don't understand, claim it invalidates evolution, and then refuse to listen to any attempt at a rational explanation.

I made it very clear that I would accept evidence against evolution, so long as the evidence was actual VALID evidence and not just someone who doesn't understand it. Your misconceptions and ignorance of evolution do not constitute evidence against it.

no. you clearly said that you agree that if we will find 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false. so we do find such a case. why you ingore it?

 

[pat34lee]

Um..wut?

Wasn't that your point about mutations in the phenotype,
that they can't be passed on to future generations?

Only mutations of the gametes pass down to offspring. But
if they remain only in the offspring's gametes, they can't
affect the animal, other than possibly rendering it sterile.

 

[Speedwell]

Wasn't that your point about mutations in the phenotype,
that they can't be passed on to future generations?

Only mutations of the gametes pass down to offspring. But
if they remain only in the offspring's gametes, they can't
affect the animal, other than possibly rendering it sterile.

No, the point was to expand on the relationship between genetic mutations and the randomly distributed phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts.

 

[46AND2]

Wasn't that your point about mutations in the phenotype,
that they can't be passed on to future generations?

Only mutations of the gametes pass down to offspring. But
if they remain only in the offspring's gametes, they can't
affect the animal, other than possibly rendering it sterile.

No.

And evolution can't happen unless mutations ARE in the gametes.

You have mutations in your DNA which your parents passed down to you. Everyone does.

 

[pat34lee]

You have mutations in your DNA which your parents passed down to you. Everyone does.

Are you sure about that? What if they were in the half of the DNA
that didn't get passed down from each parent?

 

[pat34lee]

And again, the program looks for these letters and holds
onto them. In nature, that doesn't work because each
step toward a goal is not helpful by itself, and is usually
detrimental. What good are wings to a bear without the
dozens of other features necessary for flight?

 

[pat34lee]

That is common variation within a species and has
nothing to do with evolution. The DNA of all creatures
has a range of features which are controlled by, not
evolution, but heredity.

 

[Speedwell]

And again, the program looks for these letters and holds
onto them. In nature, that doesn't work because each
step toward a goal is not helpful by itself, and is usually
detrimental. What good are wings to a bear without the
dozens of other features necessary for flight?

No, that's not what the theory of evolution claims. What the theory claims is that each step is beneficial in some way. There is no "goal" beyond the very next beneficial step.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You fail to see the point I'm making, therefore, since it
can't possibly be that you don't understand it, I must
be ignorant of the truth as you perceive it. It may even
be that I'm not making the best case for my POV.

I have a pretty firm grasp on what GA's are all about, and by extension I have a pretty firm grasp on how the evolutionary process works.

Yes, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that the things you write, show black on white that your understanding of the process is completely sub-par. Not to say, embarassingly lacking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, evolution has neither.

Except that it has both.

Genetics guards against change. So does sexual reproduction.

And yet, mutation factually, demonstrably happens. Every generation. In every new born.

This is why we have seen stasis in nature for
the past few thousand years of written history.

The past few thousand years register only as a few seconds if we represented the history of life on this planet as a 24 hour clock.

A few thousand years is FAR TOO LITTLE to determine if it is a period of "statis" or not.
Remember the cambrian "explosion"? That's a period of 40 to 80 MILLION years.

If you would take any period of only a few millenia withing that cambrian "explosion", it would look like stasis as well.

Survive and reproduce is an individual trait,
not a collective or evolutionary one.

It's an individual trait, with effects on the total population.

Counting on something like mutations to drive
evolution gives you about a 99% road to death,
as mutations are basically always degenerative.

Another thing that is just blatantly wrong.
Most mutations are actually neutral.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Natural selection tends to select for those closest to the genetic norm.

No. It selects for those genes that are best equipped for survival and reproduction in the given habitat. Yes, it can be the case that upholding the status quo is what gets favored.
That usually happens in periods of stability, when all species have their niche and nothing much is changing in the environments, in deseases, in natural enemies, in migration patterns, in geological things, etc.

In GA, this stage is called the "local optimum". It means that things are pretty much "as good as they get" without any easy genetic pathways towards better fitness. This local optimum gets upset real quick when things start changing. Natural selection pressures will change eventually, local optimums will get breached, some will go extinct, others will adapt/evolve further and fill new niches.

Animals and even insects have mating rituals that must be adhered to
or the female will not allow the male to inseminate her.

As for breeding, isn't that just what evolution teaches, that all of those
specialized organisms would be selected for sooner or later? By chance.

Not by chance. Natural selection isn't chance based.

Destructive forces and limited variation do not equal evolution.
Otherwise, Chernobyl and Fukushima should be the next Edens.

That made no sense whatsoever in reply to the statement you quoted

Natural evolution should not care about wheels or aerodynamics.
You should be getting square wheels, no wheels, wheels that don't
fit on the tracks, etc. Even if you get better wheels in one generation,
each successive generation has a 50/50 chance of erasing it.

It sounds like you have no idea what natural selection is all about.

 

[Kylie]

no. you clearly said that you agree that if we will find 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false. so we do find such a case. why you ingore it?

Because, as has been explained to you already, there is an explanation.