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."
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nature doesn't plan. Natural selection isn't about "planning". It is simply the upshot of heritable variability and resource limitation.
Artificial selection is not a bad analogy to natural selection. No analogy is perfect.Which is why it's a bad analogy
The process of selecting against individuals with disadvantageous mutations.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."
I agree with the last sentence. Your first is just a repeating of your beliefsArtificial selection is not a bad analogy to natural selection. No analogy is perfect.
The process of selecting against individuals with disadvantageous mutations.
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.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 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).how is a person with a plan selecting analogous with something with no plan not really 'selecting'
Why not?I don't subscribe to natural selection.
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).
Why not?
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.
What other criteria is there?
What processes? A breeder selectively chooses traits that they have to fit a plan.
How does nature plan?
No. I don't. I just cited Not all who cry "Lord! Lord" will be saved.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. Because Natural selection means that which survives survives, you've just said the same thing, only used more wordsBut 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.
Good heavens, I've been asking about this throughout the thread.Good heavens, the great Montalban deigning to ask us lowly evolutionists a question!
So what? If there's only one other, then so be it.Firstly, "criteria" is plural.
I accept this, which is why I've argued against the 'meteor' or the 'truck' killing something negating 'natural selection'.But more importantly, the fitness of a genotype or phenotype can be defined asthe 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,
Why is that not still correct. Evolution could be about nothing survivingbecause 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.)
Show me how nature selects in any way like a breeder does.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 said: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.
Mark Kennedy said:Are you an atheist?
Mark Kennedy said: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.
Mark Kennedy said:Yea there is something vital you missed, the cause of beneficial/positive/adaptive change that selection acts upon.
I accept this, which is why I've argued against the 'meteor' or the 'truck' killing something negating 'natural selection'.
Show me how nature selects in any way like 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 not an answer as nature in no way selects as 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 neither here nor there. It's not part of this topic
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"Fair enough but I don't see the point of this thread.
That's what "Survival of the Fittest" meansI'm not saying that to be rude - what are you trying to argue when you say "that which survives survives"?
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.Oh shut up Mark. Is that really your best response to an argument you can't answer?
Yes, I accept that. But then I asked how does nature select in anyway like breeders do.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 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.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 another argument yet again. Thanks for the bait switch.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?
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?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.
You've identified yourself as one in your profile.I'm not a Creationist.
Montalban said: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.
I don't believe I have.You've identified yourself as one in your profile.
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
Why do you reject the action of natural selection?
Yes, I've already addressed this.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.
You also say you're not a creationist but your profile says you are, which might be causing a little bit of confusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?