Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Natural Selection is not metaphysics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pete Harcoff" data-source="post: 2009617" data-attributes="member: 3351"><p>I've seen it raised a few times on this forum that natural selection is metaphysics. I challenge that claim with the following:</p><p></p><p>First of all, I snagged a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphysics" target="_blank">definition of metaphysics</a> from Dictionary.com:</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em><strong>met·a·phys·ics</strong> ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks)</em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>n. </em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>1. Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. </em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. </em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.</em></span> (modified for readibility)</p><p></p><p>Of these, definitions two and three are where natural selection might fall under relating to biological evolution. But definition 2 is vague, whereas definition 3 is precise: <em>A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.</em></p><p></p><p>Second, I snagged <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural%20selection" target="_blank">a definition of natural selection</a>, also from Dictionary.com</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>n. </em></span></p><p><span style="color: Navy"><em>The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.</em></span></p><p></p><p>Now, if this process is "<em>a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment</em>", therefore it should not be possible to test (scientifically) natural selection.</p><p></p><p>However, I have an example in which the outcome of the process of natural selection was predicted and verified via a laboratory experiment:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf" target="_blank">Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment</a></p><p></p><p>Excerpts:</p><p></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em><strong>The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em></em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em>Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 28&#8211;15L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em></em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em><strong>The Evolved Strain Transports Glucose Two to Eight Times Faster than the Parental Strain</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em></em></span></p><p><span style="color: DarkSlateBlue"><em>Given our observation that the two strains differ in s by an order of magnitude, the simplest explanation for their difference in competitive ability is that selection has favored the evolution of an improved mechanism for transporting limiting substrate. Figure 3 shows the results of glucose transport assays comparing uptake velocity at several glucose concentrations for cells grown in chemostat monoculture on 0.08% glucose at a dilution rate of 0.2/h. The evolved strain consistently demonstrates greater substrate uptake velocity than the parental strain.</em></span></p><p></p><p>The full paper goes into much more detail, but I highlighted the parts I need to make my point. We have an empirical demonstration of natural selection in action, with a particular strain of yeast out-competing another in response to its environment.</p><p></p><p>Is natural selection metaphysics? Based on the above experiment, I would say no. So to the creationists that have made this assertion, can you defend it? If this experiment doesn't demonstrate natural selection, then what are we seeing here?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pete Harcoff, post: 2009617, member: 3351"] I've seen it raised a few times on this forum that natural selection is metaphysics. I challenge that claim with the following: First of all, I snagged a [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphysics]definition of metaphysics[/url] from Dictionary.com: [COLOR=Navy][i][b]met·a·phys·ics[/b] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt-fzks) n. 1. Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. 2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. 3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. 4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.[/i][/COLOR] (modified for readibility) Of these, definitions two and three are where natural selection might fall under relating to biological evolution. But definition 2 is vague, whereas definition 3 is precise: [i]A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.[/i] Second, I snagged [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural%20selection]a definition of natural selection[/url], also from Dictionary.com [COLOR=Navy][i]n. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.[/i][/COLOR] Now, if this process is "[i]a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment[/i]", therefore it should not be possible to test (scientifically) natural selection. However, I have an example in which the outcome of the process of natural selection was predicted and verified via a laboratory experiment: [url=http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf]Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment[/url] Excerpts: [COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][i][b]The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture[/b] Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 28–15L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected. [b]The Evolved Strain Transports Glucose Two to Eight Times Faster than the Parental Strain[/b] Given our observation that the two strains differ in s by an order of magnitude, the simplest explanation for their difference in competitive ability is that selection has favored the evolution of an improved mechanism for transporting limiting substrate. Figure 3 shows the results of glucose transport assays comparing uptake velocity at several glucose concentrations for cells grown in chemostat monoculture on 0.08% glucose at a dilution rate of 0.2/h. The evolved strain consistently demonstrates greater substrate uptake velocity than the parental strain.[/i][/COLOR] The full paper goes into much more detail, but I highlighted the parts I need to make my point. We have an empirical demonstration of natural selection in action, with a particular strain of yeast out-competing another in response to its environment. Is natural selection metaphysics? Based on the above experiment, I would say no. So to the creationists that have made this assertion, can you defend it? If this experiment doesn't demonstrate natural selection, then what are we seeing here? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Natural Selection is not metaphysics
Top
Bottom