Natural Selection Is Circular Logic

[AV1611VET]

You don't even understand what that means, do you?

Do I have to?

Circular is circular; irregardless of what is circulating.

 

[mark kennedy]

No maybe about it. Beneficial alleles happen.

I know, adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale is another matter. I have no way of checking the beat fur color gene but Ill bet its nearly identical in vlack, grissley and polar bears.white fur is a comnon trait in the arctic, no waybrandom mutations is the explaination.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No maybe about it. Beneficial alleles happen.

Agreed, as the Grants found out when they discovered that breeding was two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations.....

No one questions beneficial alleles happen at all..... nor do we question that damage occurs......

 

[Kylie]

Do I have to?

Circular is circular; irregardless of what is circulating.

When you spout nonsense about something because you don't understand what you are talking about, it just makes you look foolish.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you spout nonsense about something because you don't understand what you are talking about, it just makes you look foolish.

If I asked a kid if a merry-go-round is circular or squarular, and he says "circular;" but he doesn't know diddly about playground physics, would you consider him "looking foolish"?

Science breeds ridicule.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know, adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale is another matter. I have no way of checking the beat fur color gene but Ill bet its nearly identical in vlack, grissley and polar bears.white fur is a comnon trait in the arctic, no waybrandom mutations is the explaination.

By itself, no. But random mutations plus natural selection explain it quite nicely.

Suppose that at first, maybe one bear in 10,000 was born with the white fur gene. Given that in the arctic, those white bears are going to succeed at hunting where the brown and black bears fail, that's number's going to change over time, isn't it?

 

[mark kennedy]

By itself, no. But random mutations plus natural selection explain it quite nicely.

Suppose that at first, maybe one bear in 10,000 was born with the white fur gene. Given that in the arctic, those white bears are going to succeed at hunting where the brown and black bears fail, that's number's going to change over time, isn't it?

You leave out one vital question and jump straight to a foregone conclusion. Where dis that specific allele come from. There is absolutely no reason to assume a mutation, let alone a beneficial effect. That genome isn't going to produce such a specific trait unless the nessacary allele existed prior to the migration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You leave out one vital question and jump straight to a foregone conclusion. Where dis that specific allele come from. There is absolutely no reason to assume a mutation

Why not?
I mean, mutations demonstrably do and can change the genetics, right?

, let alone a beneficial effect

A mutation making dark fur lighter, seems pretty beneficial for a predator who has to hunt against a white background...................

That genome isn't going to produce such a specific trait unless the nessacary allele existed prior to the migration.

Well, they do already have the fur.............................................

 

[TLK Valentine]

You leave out one vital question and jump straight to a foregone conclusion. Where dis that specific allele come from. There is absolutely no reason to assume a mutation, let alone a beneficial effect. That genome isn't going to produce such a specific trait unless the nessacary allele existed prior to the migration.

You're right about one thing -- there's no reason to assume a mutation.

However, the mutation would explain where the allele came from, and we know for a fact the allele is there. Where did it come from?

 

[mark kennedy]

You're right about one thing -- there's no reason to assume a mutation.

However, the mutation would explain where the allele came from, and we know for a fact the allele is there. Where did it come from?

Thats just it, a mutation with a benifical effect is not an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale. Whats more, just there is a change in the DNA, doesn' its the result of a copy error. Most of the variety requires no mutations and some of the nore dramatic changes cannot possibly be the result of mutations. The arctic cod has a special gene that produces an antifreeze protien. This same gen has coevolved at least 4 times. Bacteria adapt quickly to changing conditions, their immune system was thought to adapt from random mutations. Turns out a molucular mechanism call captson 9 was respinsible for that, now its been developed into a DNA editing tool call the Krispur gene.

Mutations are the worst possible explaination. They are not an explanation, they are a bad idea Darwinians can't let go.

 

[Belk]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

Flipping the position of the verb and noun in a sentence does not make something circular logic. If this was the case any process by which something was selected would be circular.

 

[mark kennedy]

Flipping the position of the verb and noun in a sentence does not make something circular logic. If this was the case any process by which something was selected would be circular.

No actually natural selection is an effect without a cause. A population of European anthrapod apes are migrating from Eurasia. A significant number of them are isolated in Borneo, orangatans are the result. This is natural selection due to geologic isolation and explain absolutely nothing with regards to the emergence of unique adaptive traits. However it can be explained by normative Mendelian segregatiom and pristine gene pools that hadn't accumulated mutations following the flood of Noah.

Science is about tools, mental and physical. We are the only tool making animal on the planet. New species arrive on the scene through a selective process involving molecular mechanisms utilizing already existing allels. Mutations do mnot provide adaptive traits, when the do have an effect sufficent for selection to act it is deleterious the vast majority of the time. This is painfully obvious to Darwinians who cant explain divergence beyond the level of genus. So they propagate the mutation plus selection tautology because they are working fron a naturalistic assumption that reasons fallaciously in circles around known facts. The premise of the OP is sound.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thats just it, a mutation with a benifical effect is not an adaptive trait on an evolutionary scale.

...because...?

Whats more, just there is a change in the DNA, doesn' its the result of a copy error.

True, it could be the result of a recessive gene... but then where did that gene come from?

Most of the variety requires no mutations and some of the nore dramatic changes cannot possibly be the result of mutations.

...because...?

The arctic cod has a special gene that produces an antifreeze protien. This same gen has coevolved at least 4 times. Bacteria adapt quickly to changing conditions, their immune system was thought to adapt from random mutations. Turns out a molucular mechanism call captson 9 was respinsible for that, now its been developed into a DNA editing tool call the Krispur gene.

These things are easier to research when you spell them correctly... just sayin...

Cas9 and CRISPR are products of the prokaryotic immune systems, and they're fascinating mechanisms... thank you for the heads up!

Still doesn't explain why you chose to disregard natural selection, however... or what this has to do with non-prokaryotes

Mutations are the worst possible explaination. They are not an explanation, they are a bad idea Darwinians can't let go.

Then replace it with a better one.

 

[Belk]

No actually natural selection is an effect without a cause. A population of European anthrapod apes are migrating from Eurasia. A significant number of them are isolated in Borneo, orangatans are the result. This is natural selection due to geologic isolation and explain absolutely nothing with regards to the emergence of unique adaptive traits. However it can be explained by normative Mendelian segregatiom and pristine gene pools that hadn't accumulated mutations following the flood of Noah.

Unmitigated poppycock.

Science is about tools, mental and physical. We are the only tool making animal on the planet.

incorrect.

Tool use by animals - Wikipedia

New species arrive on the scene through a selective process involving molecular mechanisms utilizing already existing allels. Mutations do mnot provide adaptive traits, when the do have an effect sufficent for selection to act it is deleterious the vast majority of the time. This is painfully obvious to Darwinians who cant explain divergence beyond the level of genus. So they propagate the mutation plus selection tautology because they are working fron a naturalistic assumption that reasons fallaciously in circles around known facts. The premise of the OP is sound.

No, it is not a sound premise for the reason I outlined. It is simply reversing the order of the noun and verb in a sentence and claiming it is circular.

 

[AV1611VET]

Flipping the position of the verb and noun in a sentence does not make something circular logic. If this was the case any process by which something was selected would be circular.

You mean adjective and noun?

 

[Belk]

You mean adjective and noun?

I did, thank you.

 

[mark kennedy]

...because...?

Because if its a reading frame for a protien coding gene is proably going to cause a frameshift.

True, it could be the result of a recessive gene... but then where did that gene come from?

The originalky created gene pool.


[/quote]These things are easier to research when you spell them correctly... just sayin...
[/quote]
Im a clumsy typer, this is awkward on a cell

Cas9 and CRISPR are products of the prokaryotic immune systems, and they're fascinating mechanisms... thank you for the heads up!

There was a fascinating interview on NPR, I dont have the link right now but definately google it. You wont be sorry

Still doesn't explain why you chose to disregard natural selection, however... or what this has to do with non-prokaryotes

I dont dismiss natural selection, its just not a sound explanation for adaptive evolution.

Then replace it with a better one.

Mendelian genetics already has. There has been a lot of terminology generated, selective coefficients is a good one. Cost and benefit are major factors and even a beneficial trait is selected at a cost. I see no reason to replace it, just understand the difference between philosophical naturalism, which is just one long argument against special creation based on naturalistic assumption. And selection based on changing allelles based on normative Mendelian genetics.

Genetics is starting to unpack the intricacies of how these systems work. The cause is ultimately molecular and passing mutations off as a source for adaptive traits is counter productive. The answers are elsewhere, Darwinism has never been helpfull along those lines anyway.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I dont dismiss natural selection, its just not a sound explanation for adaptive evolution.

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from... seems to me you're trying to say that natural selection works just fine; it's mutation that's the weak link...

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from... seems to me you're trying to say that natural selection works just fine; it's mutation that's the weak link...

Sure, thats the gist of it. Especially in protien coding genes, where the amino acid sequence comes in triplet codons. Mutations in reading frames and truncated protiens. There are just too many other explanations, like epigenetic and gene expression that requires no change in the DNA. I remember the nylon earing bacteria was a big topic on here for a while. I looked into it and turns out, it was swapping out the reading frame, the old one was kind of warehoused.

Whats more any change in the DNA is automatically called a mutation, when it could be a purposefull modification by a presently unknown molecular mechanism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure, thats the gist of it. Especially in protien coding genes, where the amino acid sequence comes in triplet codons. Mutations in reading frames and truncated protiens. There are just too many other explanations, like epigenetic and gene expression that requires no change in the DNA. I remember the nylon earing bacteria was a big topic on here for a while. I looked into it and turns out, it was swapping out the reading frame, the old one was kind of warehoused.

Dominance and recessive....

Whats more any change in the DNA is automatically called a mutation, when it could be a purposefull modification by a presently unknown molecular mechanism.

Or just simple recombination of existing genes into new patterns..... (minus the falsity of separate species)

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."