Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Montalban]

Nature doesn't plan. Natural selection isn't about "planning". It is simply the upshot of heritable variability and resource limitation.

Which is why it's a bad analogy

So I ask again what processes? You had said that selective breeding is a good analogy because "The same processes have been demonstrated to act in nature."

 

[Mallon]

Which is why it's a bad analogy

Artificial selection is not a bad analogy to natural selection. No analogy is perfect.

So I ask again what processes? You had said that selective breeding is a good analogy because "The same processes have been demonstrated to act in nature."

The process of selecting against individuals with disadvantageous mutations.

Do you not subscribe to natural selection, Montalban? (I think that's the third time in this thread I've asked you that now.)

 

[Montalban]

Artificial selection is not a bad analogy to natural selection. No analogy is perfect.

I agree with the last sentence. Your first is just a repeating of your beliefs

The process of selecting against individuals with disadvantageous mutations.

how is a person with a plan selecting analogous with something with no plan not really 'selecting'

You've simply repeated a 'just-so' that it is, not shown how it is.

Do you not subscribe to natural selection, Montalban? (I think that's the third time in this thread I've asked you that now.)

I apologise if I've missed this question. I've only noted that people have said that I'm arguing against it, and I'm not. I don't see what my personal beliefs have to do with this, however I do believe in answering people's questions. I don't subscribe to natural selection. However I don't think it will fall on the issue of poor analogies.

 

[Mallon]

how is a person with a plan selecting analogous with something with no plan not really 'selecting'

I just answered that. Both artificial selection and natural selection select against individuals with disadvantageous mutations (in the former scenario, "disadvantageous mutations" are those deemed unwanted by the culturist; in the latter scenario, disadvantageous mutations are those that lead to death before reproduction or those that reduce the rate of reproduction).

I don't subscribe to natural selection.

Why not?

 

[Montalban]

I just answered that. Both artificial selection and natural selection select against individuals with disadvantageous mutations (in the former scenario, "disadvantageous mutations" are those deemed unwanted by the culturist; in the latter scenario, disadvantageous mutations are those that lead to death before reproduction or those that reduce the rate of reproduction).

That's not an answer as nature in no way selects as a breeder does.

Nature doesn't 'want' therefore there's no 'unwnted' mutations.

Why not?

That's neither here nor there. It's not part of this topic

 

[shernren]

Thanks for the tu quoque. It also says "Not all who cry Lord! Lord! will be saved but those that do the will of the Father".

However leaving aside another debate about a contradictions in the Bible, it's not a tautology to say that if you do 'x' then 'y' will happen.

A warning for all of us, I'm sure. And I wasn't pointing out a contradiction in the Bible; I believe that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved, just as you do.

But yes, as you have said yourself, it is not a tautology to say that if you do "x", then "y" will happen.

Just so, it is not a tautology to say that, if individuals bearing allele A of a gene produce less reproductive offspring on average than individuals bearing allele B, then over the long run the proportion of individuals bearing allele A in the population will decrease and the proportion of individuals bearing allele B will increase.

What other criteria is there?

Good heavens, the great Montalban deigning to ask us lowly evolutionists a question!

Firstly, "criteria" is plural.

But more importantly, the fitness of a genotype or phenotype can be defined as

the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype.
​

Fitness isn't of individuals, but of their characteristics; furthermore, it is not defined by the life and death of any one individual, but by the reproductive contributions of the cohort as a whole.

So, suppose there were a gene that enabled humans to live (and remain fertile) twice as long as they currently do. If one carrier of that gene stepped out in front of a car and died, the fitness of that fantastic trait would not be instantly zeroed, because the fitness is measured as an average across all the people who possess it, the multitudes who go on to have many more longer-living babies.

(Besides, if I used your criterion of fitness, I could confidently declare that all organisms alive today have zero fitness - after all, none of them will have survived a million years from now.)

What processes? A breeder selectively chooses traits that they have to fit a plan.

How does nature plan?

In the same way that gravity makes the moon orbit around the earth as the moon feels the gravitational pull of the earth's masses and is drawn towards it by (a) force. Neither physics nor biology is invalidated by the casual use of anthropomorphic language to describe insensate processes; though mindless, they are no less real for being so.

 

[Montalban]

A warning for all of us, I'm sure. And I wasn't pointing out a contradiction in the Bible; I believe that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved, just as you do.

No. I don't. I just cited Not all who cry "Lord! Lord" will be saved.

It's not a tautology for the very reason that one thing leading to another is not one.

If you say one thing is itself, like all knives are knives, then that's a tautology

But yes, as you have said yourself, it is not a tautology to say that if you do "x", then "y" will happen.

Just so, it is not a tautology to say that, if individuals bearing allele A of a gene produce less reproductive offspring on average than individuals bearing allele B, then over the long run the proportion of individuals bearing allele A in the population will decrease and the proportion of individuals bearing allele B will increase.

No. Because Natural selection means that which survives survives, you've just said the same thing, only used more words

Good heavens, the great Montalban deigning to ask us lowly evolutionists a question!

Good heavens, I've been asking about this throughout the thread.

Firstly, "criteria" is plural.

So what? If there's only one other, then so be it.

But more importantly, the fitness of a genotype or phenotype can be defined as

the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype.
​

Fitness isn't of individuals, but of their characteristics; furthermore, it is not defined by the life and death of any one individual, but by the reproductive contributions of the cohort as a whole.

So, suppose there were a gene that enabled humans to live (and remain fertile) twice as long as they currently do. If one carrier of that gene stepped out in front of a car and died, the fitness of that fantastic trait would not be instantly zeroed,

I accept this, which is why I've argued against the 'meteor' or the 'truck' killing something negating 'natural selection'.

because the fitness is measured as an average across all the people who possess it, the multitudes who go on to have many more longer-living babies.

(Besides, if I used your criterion of fitness, I could confidently declare that all organisms alive today have zero fitness - after all, none of them will have survived a million years from now.)

Why is that not still correct. Evolution could be about nothing surviving

However again that which survives, survives

In the same way that gravity makes the moon orbit around the earth as the moon feels the gravitational pull of the earth's masses and is drawn towards it by (a) force. Neither physics nor biology is invalidated by the casual use of anthropomorphic language to describe insensate processes; though mindless, they are no less real for being so.

Show me how nature selects in any way like a breeder does.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I've not been trying to disprove evolution or prove God nor use an argument of infinite regression. I've stated that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology because it means that which survives survives.

Fair enough but I don't see the point of this thread. I'm not saying that to be rude - what are you trying to argue when you say "that which survives survives"?

Are you an atheist?

Oh shut up Mark. Is that really your best response to an argument you can't answer?

The fact is that the cause is known it's just not adequate to explain the vast array of specialization that would be required from prebiotic to prokaryotic to animalia and plantea cells. That at a bare minimum is required to have at it's core cause a network of molecular mechanisms capable of these developments and adaptations.

Just chanting natural selection like a mantra is a tautology and setting up a strawman argument for a cosmological argument no one is making is hopelessly fallacious.

So, to you at least, evolution can't explain the various differences between cells?

You ad hominem attack appeals to a false dilemma which assumes the burden of proof lies with evolutionists relying on a genetic fallacy ... waffle waffle waffle ...

Yea there is something vital you missed, the cause of beneficial/positive/adaptive change that selection acts upon.

Which is what? Genetic mutations? I already mentioned those - and I mentioned that such mutations are, in evolutionary terms, unintentional.

 

[shernren]

I accept this, which is why I've argued against the 'meteor' or the 'truck' killing something negating 'natural selection'.

Very good. So you do agree that a fit individual - that is, an individual carrying fit traits - need not survive longer than an unfit individual?

Show me how nature selects in any way like a breeder does.

Show me how gravity pulls an apple in any way like you do.

 

[Mallon]

That's not an answer as nature in no way selects as a breeder does.

It's a personification of nature. We do it all the time. It in no way negates my answer or renders the analogy moot. As shernren said, gravity doesn't actually 'pull', genes aren't actually 'selfish', and opposite charges don't actually 'attract', either.

That's neither here nor there. It's not part of this topic

I can't help but think it is relevant if you're here to "teach evolution to evolutionists" with any kind of credibility. It strikes me as absolutely ridiculous that someone could reject natural selection while at the same time claiming to understand it well enough to teach others about it.
Natural selection MUST of occur when the following three criteria are met in nature:

1) there is variation in traits within a population
2) those traits are heritable
3) differential reproduction occurs (i.e., some variants are less likely to reproduce)

These three criteria are directly observable in nature. If you reject natural selection, which of the above criteria do you deny?

 

[Montalban]

Fair enough but I don't see the point of this thread.

It's to educate evolutionists. There's a number of early posts here of people denying that Darwin even used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest"

I'm not saying that to be rude - what are you trying to argue when you say "that which survives survives"?

That's what "Survival of the Fittest" means

Oh shut up Mark. Is that really your best response to an argument you can't answer?

Although not directed at me, I've been asked about my personal beliefs too, so people aren't interested in the discussion but choose to personalise this.

 

[Montalban]

It's a personification of nature. We do it all the time. It in no way negates my answer or renders the analogy moot. As shernren said, gravity doesn't actually 'pull', genes aren't actually 'selfish', and opposite charges don't actually 'attract', either.

Yes, I accept that. But then I asked how does nature select in anyway like breeders do.

He says that it’s a good analogy but nature in no way selects like a breeder does.

I don't deny that people personify nature. But there's good and bad analogies.

This is a bad analogy.

So far you two defend this by :
People use personifications all the time
And
This is a personification and therefore it's a good analogy

The one doesn't follow the other.

If you want to say "Nature selects" that is fine. You do more than that. You say "Nature selects in a way like a breeder selects".

If you said "Gravity pulls like a guy in a pub" then you'd have a flawed analogy
("pull" means to pick-up)

One is merely a personification, the other goes further. I'm sorry to labour this point but you two don't seem to get the difference.

So I ask again how does nature 'select' in anyway like a breeder does.

I can't help but think it is relevant if you're here to "teach evolution to evolutionists" with any kind of credibility. It strikes me as absolutely ridiculous that someone could reject natural selection while at the same time claiming to understand it well enough to teach others about it.

That's flawed reasoning. I have studied communism, particularly Marxism (Marx's Theory of Surplus Value, Marx's Theory of Alienation, etc.). I don't have to be a communist to study it.

Natural selection MUST of occur when the following three criteria are met in nature:

1) there is variation in traits within a population
2) those traits are heritable
3) differential reproduction occurs (i.e., some variants are less likely to reproduce)

These three criteria are directly observable in nature. If you reject natural selection, which of the above criteria do you deny?

That's another argument yet again. Thanks for the bait switch.
However even here you've missed the important part of "Natural Selection" relating to the survival of those with heritable differences that allow them to adapt to changes in circumstances.

 

[Mallon]

Oy ve. I think I'll bow out of the discussion about whether "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, and about whether artificial selection is a good analogy for natural selection. To be honest, Montalban, it really makes little difference to me what you think about those subjects. I don't suppose you're going to convince anyone but yourself.

This piqued my interest, though...

However even here you've missed the important part of "Natural Selection" relating to the survival of those with heritable differences that allow them to adapt to changes in circumstances.

So you deny that organisms can adapt to their environments? Why? Even most creationists I'm familiar with accept natural selection and adaptation. What do you make, say, of the Grant's work on Darwin's finches, documenting changes in beak morphology in concordance with changes in local climate?

How is that not documentation of natural selection in action?

 

[Montalban]

I'm not a Creationist.

However if you're convinced that it's not a tautology because it isn't, because it isn't, because it isn't, then that's entirely up to you.

None of your other 'criteria' have shown anything other than survival of the fittest meaning that which survives, survives.

As to using analogy there's again nothing but it's a good analogy, because it is, because it is.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not a Creationist.

You've identified yourself as one in your profile.

Why do you reject the action of natural selection?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There's a number of early posts here of people denying that Darwin even used the phrase "Survival of the Fittest"
...
If you want to say "Nature selects" that is fine. You do more than that. You say "Nature selects in a way like a breeder selects".

If you said "Gravity pulls like a guy in a pub" then you'd have a flawed analogy
("pull" means to pick-up)

One is merely a personification, the other goes further. I'm sorry to labour this point but you two don't seem to get the difference.

So I ask again how does nature 'select' in anyway like a breeder does.

Ah, so you're debating over the the use of words? The words themselves are a relatively minor point; as Mallon said words like "select" are merely personifications. Obviously nature does not choose traits the way a human dog breeder would.

Or are you debating over our ideas on selection? That is, are you saying (as I mentioned in my first post) nature does not truly 'select' as this form of selection is unintentional? Is it the effect rather than the cause of evolution?

You also say you're not a creationist but your profile says you are, which might be causing a little bit of confusion.

 

[Montalban]

You've identified yourself as one in your profile.

I don't believe I have.

I believe this is what it says:
Origin of the Life View
Young Earth Creation

That I believe in a 'young earth' as they do does not make me a creationist as I understand it.

I've stated a number of times over the years where I differ from creationists. Such as here...two years ago

I make no argument here about creationism. I could cite 'bad examples' used to support creationism.*

*-Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?”
Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69

and here seven years ago...http://www.christianforums.com/t88317-3/#post1647274

Creationism is, as I understand it an attempt to show creation in a scientific context.

As I cite from the post from Jan-2004
"Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because "the scientists permanently disprove themselves."
The Age of the Earth

I have shown this because my position hasn't changed in the years I've been here on the board. However if you consider that despite all this, that I am one, that's okay. I do not tie my beliefs to science. But whilst I do like to talk about me, I'm not the subject of this thread.

Why do you reject the action of natural selection?

I am touched that you seem to want to discuss me more than the subject.

 

[Montalban]

Ah, so you're debating over the the use of words? The words themselves are a relatively minor point; as Mallon said words like "select" are merely personifications. Obviously nature does not choose traits the way a human dog breeder would.

Yes, I've already addressed this.

You also say you're not a creationist but your profile says you are, which might be causing a little bit of confusion.

My profile does not say I'm a Creationist. I can understand that when people having nothing to discuss that they wish to invetigate personal issues.

 

[Montalban]

So apart from survival of the surviviest, what else do we have ?

How does natural selection select in any manner like a breeder?

 

[Papias]

*** Sorry, double post. Deleted. *****