How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

[DogmaHunter]

Every molecule, every plant, every rock, every tree, every star, every planet,
every creature,
every part of everything ever created (all things were created by/through Him, and nothing was created apart from Him)
everything you could ever imagine or think of that does exist,
everything "temporal", physical, earthly,
is held together by Him, until it is time for it all to be rolled up in fiery glory.

This is the science sub-forum, not the "please preach forum".
Over here, you are required to support your wild assertions.

Nothing ever happens by chance. There are no coincidences.

Prove it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but you cant do that too. if we will consider this system as ABC, and you will remove C, it will not function in any way in the past since you will get the same result (AB). thing about making a car stepwise. if you will remove the wheels the car cant drive any more. so you will not get a different system in any way by removing the crucial parts of the car. also remember that even if the car will has living traits like self replication or organic components it will not change the fact that such a car is evidence for design.

Your mistake is that you think that current functions of any given system, have always been those functions.

This is utterly false. Especially in biology.

Best example of that is probably wings.
Wings are used for flying in today's birds. Well, in most anyway.
There are also birds who use their wings for holding on to heat or the opposite: for cooling.
There are also birds who use their wings as flippers, like pinguins.
There are also wings that are used for "gliding" when jumping from certain heights and which can't be used to actually fly.

When wings started evolving, they weren't used for flight. That only came much later.

I'm under no illusion that you'll think this through.
I fully expect that you'll reply with some irrelevant one liner, followed by the same old nonsense claims and false analogies.

 

[pshun2404]

Natural selection doesn't "decide" anything. It's a process, not a sentient being that makes decisions.

Those that live and reproduce, spread their (potentially mutated) genes.
Those that die and/or don't reproduce, don't spread their (potentially mutated) genes.

It really is that simple.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

Great! I guess it is a good thing I never mentioned "decide" (as if it has a mind, which I never implied nor believe)...the question (in response to being told natural selection in responsible for which ones stay and which ones go) is how would or does natural selection do this? Many fine answers were given and most clearly do not agree selection has anything to do with it. I am fine with these various opinions. I do NOT find this explanation that genes get passed on hard to understand at all (though it does not address the question). Thanks for your simplicity and YES.."Natural Selection" is NOT a sentient being (something else I NEVER said or implied).

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do NOT find this explanation that genes get passed on hard to understand at all (though it does not address the question). Thanks for your simplicity and YES.."Natural Selection" is NOT a sentient being (something else I NEVER said or implied).

Then I gues I don't understand what you are asking about.

Mutation happens.
Carrier succeeds in surviving and reproducing.
Off spring inherits the genes, including whatever mutations present, from carrier.
Off spring succeeds as well and goes on to make more off spring, again passing on these mutated genes (along with its own potential mutations).
Repeat until carrier's mutation(s) are present in entire/vast majority of population.

What's tripping you up?

 

[xianghua]

Your mistake is that you think that current functions of any given system, have always been those functions.
This is utterly false. Especially in biology.
.

but there is no function at all if you will remove some parts of the olfactory system. so it's not the same like wings. therefore your example is irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

a

So you think we are claiming that if system ABC evolved, it must have evolved AB first and then evolved C?

Have you ever played a game called Word Ladder? It involves changing one word into another entirely different word by a series of steps which change only one letter at a time. The rule is, each individual letter change has to produce a real word. For example, I can change TIME into CAKE by changing one letter at a time like this:

TIME
LIME
LIKE
BIKE
BAKE
CAKE

Now you can come along, arbitrarily knock off the first letter of CAKE and claim that word ladders are impossible because AKE isn't a real word.

first; biological systems arent words. secondly: you start with a word in the same length. so again it's not the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but there is no function at all if you will remove some parts of the olfactory system. so it's not the same like wings. therefore your example is irrelevant.

If you remove some parts of an albatros' wings, it has absolutely no function either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

a

first; biological systems arent words. secondly: you start with a word in the same length. so again it's not the same.

The concept is the exact same.
Changing one small thing at a time results in different output and a gradual progression towards a system that might functionally not have anything at all to do with the original structure.

We see that a lot in biology.

 

[xianghua]

If you remove some parts of an albatros' wings, it has absolutely no function either.

so are you saying that the olfactory system evolved without any advantage every step? what will be the use of olfactory receptor without other parts of the system?

 

[sfs]

impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

The sense of smell is just the ability to detect specific chemicals. That ability requires neither nerves nor brain, and exists in the absence of either. I don't know anything about the early evolution of odor receptors, but there's no reason in principle that they couldn't be useful without any other components.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so are you saying that the olfactory system evolved without any advantage every step? what will be the use of olfactory receptor without other parts of the system?

As long as those parts weren't a detriment, that trait could persist regardless of whether or not it had a use.

 

[Speedwell]

so are you saying that the olfactory system evolved without any advantage every step? what will be the use of olfactory receptor without other parts of the system?

No. Each step was advantageous, or at least neutral, in itself. But the steps need not lead directly to an olfactory system.

 

[xianghua]

The sense of smell is just the ability to detect specific chemicals. That ability requires neither nerves nor brain, and exists in the absence of either. I don't know anything about the early evolution of odor receptors, but there's no reason in principle that they couldn't be useful without any other components.

prove it. provide evidence that this receptor has a functional meaning without the other parts. just by itself. can you do that?

 

[xianghua]

As long as those parts weren't a detriment, that trait could persist regardless of whether or not it had a use.

true. but in this case the chance to get about 3 parts via neutral evolution will be almost the same like the chance to evolve it in a single step. extremely low.

 

[PsychoSarah]

true. but in this case the chance to get about 3 parts via neutral evolution will be almost the same like the chance to evolve it in a single step. extremely low.

Not suggesting 3 neutral parts in a row or something. More like just 1. Most of the structures to do with senses have some tie in with basic cell senses, so there is a basic function with them the whole time. Smell, for example, is an extension of cells being able to react to chemicals that touch their surfaces.

 

[pshun2404]

Not suggesting 3 neutral parts in a row or something. More like just 1. Most of the structures to do with senses have some tie in with basic cell senses, so there is a basic function with them the whole time. Smell, for example, is an extension of cells being able to react to chemicals that touch their surfaces.

The problem here is that cells also sense things in their environment via frequencies given off...(a cellular sensory ability) and we must admit that we just do not know whether there is more (yet to be discerned) involved.

 

[pshun2404]

Dogma said “When wings started evolving, they weren't used for flight. That only came much later”

But I see this as an interpretation only. We see earliest Avians had wings and most of the fossil remains are of those that could not fly, but because they could not fly this increased the likelihood of their becoming fossilized.

Those that could fly, not being caught in the covering over of the mud slide, cooling magma, earthquake subduction, or watery sediment that caused fossilization, are not represented and therefore the evidence is tainted and not reliable.

In other words, by this evidence alone we cannot make a sound judgment because fossils only represent a tiny amount of the examples that existed. Thus “they weren't used for flight. That only came much later” is an assumption based conclusion (not a fact).

Finally we do not see “When wings started evolving” as the earliest avians already have wings (for whatever purpose be it for balance, swimming, flying, whatever...)

So sorry Dogma...this statement is simply the narrative that has been attached to explain things through that lens....

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem here is that cells also sense things in their environment via frequencies given off...(a cellular sensory ability) and we must admit that we just do not know whether there is more (yet to be discerned) involved.

-_- I have no idea what you are talking about, since even cells that work together in colonies only communicate via chemical signals.

 

[Speedwell]

Finally we do not see “When wings started evolving” as the earliest avians already have wings (for whatever purpose be it for balance, swimming, flying, whatever...)

But that was the point: that the proto-wing appendages had utility even if they did not support flight. Supporting the inference are living creatures which use their appendages for something other than flight--the penguin, for example. The argument was that the proto-wing was useless until it would support flight, therefore natural selection could not act on its development.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- I have no idea what you are talking about, since even cells that work together in colonies only communicate via chemical signals.

Researcher Dr. Bruce Lipton, (Ph.D. Biologist) tells us...

“Membrane IMPs can be functionally subdivided into two classes: receptors and effectors. Receptors are input devices that respond to environmental signals. Effectors are output devices that activate cellular processes. A family of processor proteins, located in the cytoplasm beneath the membrane, serve to link signal-receiving receptors with action-producing effectors.

Receptors are molecular “antennas” that recognize environmental signals. Some receptor antennas extend inward from the membrane’s cytoplasmic face. These receptors “read” the internal milieu and provide awareness of cytoplasmic conditions. Other receptors extending from the cell’s outer surface provide awareness of external environmental signals.

Conventional biomedical sciences hold that environmental “information” can only be carried by the substance of molecules (Science 1999, 284:79-109). According to this notion, receptors only recognize “signals” that physically complement their surface features. This materialistic belief is maintained even though it has been amply demonstrated that protein receptors respond to vibrational frequencies. Through a process known as electro-conformational coupling (Tsong, Trends in Biochem. Sci. 1989, 14:89-92), resonant vibrational energy fields can alter the balance of charges in a protein. In a harmonic energy field, receptors will change their conformation. Consequently, membrane receptors respond to both physical and energetic environmental information.”