Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Natural Selection "guides" evolution

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 11:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

He's right.

Natural Selection is guiding all life to extinction.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:20:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

Where did he say this? Is it one of his books? I would be interested in reading it if that is the case.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 3:42:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific.

Advancements in genetic science are yielding better data that are repeatedly falsifying the conclusions reached by Natural Selection. It should be noted that the main reason that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been able to survive so long is because its long timescales require prolonged observation. If their models' timescales were shorter and mutations were selected more frequent, then we could observe and falsify them.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:09:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

Hey Joe,

Pleased to meet you here, I like what you have to say!

And this kind of attempt to say NS isn't random, and guides evolution, etc. - it's not just bad logic, it's corrupting language itself. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." They are descending back into magic spells repeated with just the right words, and they have no idea that this is what they are doing.
This space for rent.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:26:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In large populations, natural selection clearly plays a dominant role. However, in order for mutations to occur in the genetic make-up of the offspring of a species, natural selection plays no part ( except in ensuring that the embryo/fetus is viable ).

And if God is playing a role ( which I believe he is ) he's clearly very sloppy and experimental in his work - and this has implications about the kind of God that would be running the show.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:31:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think when the final results are in many, many decades from now we're going to realize that an intelligent mind is directing evolution. By that point we should have a pretty good sense of how consciousness emerges in material interactions. But I also think the intelligent designers are going to be very disappointed when they realize the God that's there is a pathetic, barely-capable weakling.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:31:42 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I think when the final results are in many, many decades from now we're going to realize that an intelligent mind is directing evolution. By that point we should have a pretty good sense of how consciousness emerges in material interactions. But I also think the intelligent designers are going to be very disappointed when they realize the God that's there is a pathetic, barely-capable weakling.

Even more . . . we're going to understand how God's consciousness emerges from miniscule interactions at the quantum level, and we're going to understand his limitations. Something like the "living force" in Star Wars is going to be a central feature of scientific knowledge about consciousness in the future.
The_Kindly_King
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce? Your observations suggest there is no competition for resources and no organism has to out compete or be concerned with the threat of being prey. Not on my block. Not in the wilderness I have seen.

The survival of the fittest advocates exactly what it suggests-organisms survive through adaptation and as such if they live long enough to reproduce the genetic material carries on to the next generation. Perhaps, for the average subject in a modern society, 'fitness' has taken on a different meaning; for example, it may be reflected in terms of financial robustness per se. The ability to defend oneself in a court of law, provide shelter and food and the like are based more around money and societal influence than physical prowess. But our (human) existence here is nothing compared to the age of the Earth. A few seconds. Indeed from the time a species comes into existence it is destined to become extinct. Everything changes- all the time. I think you need to expand your thinking with respect to this theory. It is one of only a few scientific theories that explains many events on both a molecular and population level. Separate yourself from it- perhaps as humans we are merely vehicles for the genetic machine.

Note- these ideas are from both my own observations and scientific readings that I have fortunately had the privilege of having access to.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 8:32:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:32:43 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Both theists and atheist will be disappointed at the final truth.

To be 'dis'-appointed presumes we were appointed in the first place. Why should we humans have ever expected more, if we're just mutant amoebas?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:01:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce?

I don't think anybody is trying to argue adaptability. Clearly life adapts, but then again, so does my lawnmower - the governor adjusts the throttle so the blade speed remains relatively constant through thick and thin lawn. The fact that my lawnmower has a governor does not mean it assembled itself, however. The fact that customers only select lawnmowers with governors does not mean that feature evolved, either.
This space for rent.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:27:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 1:20:16 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

Where did he say this? Is it one of his books? I would be interested in reading it if that is the case.

"The blind watchmaker," (p. 49) among many other places. He has said this in many places. Nor is he by any means the only one to make this claim.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:51:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is why I think this is worth discussing: "selection" is an active process. It is a deliberate process. What we call "natural selection is no such thing. Indeed, it is the opposite of an active process. It is completely passive. It is simply differential survival and reproduction. It just happens. Some organisms survive. Some of the survivors reproduce.

"Selection" is not something that nature participates in at all. Nature is aimless and completely subject to deterministic laws. Nature does not make choices. It never "selects" anything. Therefore it is comletely illigitimate to ascribe the attribute of "selection" to what is ostensibly a purely natural process.

Why do Dawkins and company insist that the diversification of life is both purely natural and non-random? Because they understand that life is indeed a guided process! The teleological component of life is undeniable.

Natural selection is an oxymoron and the fool who insists that life is a completely natural process is a witness against himself.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:51:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

Natural selection does guide evolution. Its a very poor guide that relies on trial and error, but it still guides a population to survive.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:09:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

Hey Joe,

Pleased to meet you here, I like what you have to say!

And this kind of attempt to say NS isn't random, and guides evolution, etc. - it's not just bad logic, it's corrupting language itself. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." They are descending back into magic spells repeated with just the right words, and they have no idea that this is what they are doing.

Care to explain?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:55:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:12:36 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Richard Dawkins argues against evolution being an unguided process, claiming that natural selection guides evolution. Is he right or wrong? Why?
I will be actively participating in this forum as time permits.

It would seem you are misunderstanding natural selection if you seriously think evolution is an unguided process.

An "unguided evolution" would be, quite frankly, incredibly boring. It would look something like this:
1. Organisms reproduce and random mutations occur. These mutations are passed down to their offspring if they have any.
2. Every mutated individual survives to the next generation and is able to reproduce. If for whatever reason they aren't able to reproduce, the reason never has anything to do with their mutations
3. The end result is a bunch of random things.

The fact that this "unguided evolution makes absolutely no sense and contradicts what we have observed is exactly why natural selection is a central part of evolution. Evolution, guided by natural selection, looks like this:
1. Organisms reproduce and random mutations occur. These mutations are passed down to their offspring if they have any.
2. Mutations (some, but not all) directly affect the organism's ability to reproduce. If an organism succeeds in reproducing, its mutations are passed down to their offspring, and any advantage that those mutations confer become part of that organism's genome and is able to help that organism reproduce. Because of the additional reproductive success, these good genes are propagated further as they survive generations.
3. On the other hand, if the organism doesn't manage to reproduce, their mutations are lost, at least until a similar or identical mutation occurs in another organism. The organism's inability to reproduce could be either due to a random fluke or the mutation having a bad effect, but due to the additional potential to be unable to reproduce, this will happen more often with organisms that have deleterious mutations.
4. The end result is a greater amount of organisms that have traits that benefit their ability to reproduce.

I think your source of confusion is conflating mutation with the entire process of evolution. Mutation, by itself, is unguided. Nothing guides mutation. Natural selection is a process that guides the end result of the larger process that begins with mutation -- evolution. Does this make sense?

Now, given the context, I am sure that you (or, if not you, at least one other person in this thread) are advocating for the notion of evolution guided by a deity. This would rely on at least one of the following premises, and I intend to point out why these do not belong anywhere near evolutionary theory. Reply to the ones which apply to you, or tell me which one does actually apply to you:

1. Mutations are the result of information that was already placed there by a designer.

If this is the case, then you should be able to explain why the designer would make bacteria capable of digesting nylon. You should also be able to explain why men produce millions of sperm per day, while women produce one egg per month - it sounds fairly inefficient to me, and is probably better explained by the system being the way it is to be more reliable rather than to be efficient. Explaining the existence of foreskin would also be nice, since you would be implying that your deity is willing to create things that offend him and be surprised when he is offended by them. Until then, evolution has an explanation for all of those things, and you don't, so can you guess which explanation we are going to use?

2. God selects which organisms survive.

This can be done two ways:
1. God selects things which natural selection wouldn't select, in which case you would be able to find examples of mutations that are clearly harmful to reproduction yet are still prevalent in a vast majority of the population.
2. God selects traits which natural selection would have selected anyways, in which case this difference in the theory has no logical implications on the real world which are observable and is therefore not worth debating and is best replaced by a simpler explanation (per Newton's Flaming Laser Sword)

In either case, the argument is indefensible.

3. God selects which mutations occur.

Then why are innocent people affected by genetic disorders? Why would God create a new mutation in a bacteria to digest nylon, knowing in advance that it would lead to more people believing in evolution and rejecting the notion that he created everything (and that he would be offended by this)? This, to some extent, can be tested - if good de novo mutations appear at a greater rate than expected with no apparent natural explanation, then that would more or less prove this premise. Until then, the scientific community has every reason to reject it.

4. God started life and let natural selection take the wheel.

Then you have conceded that evolution is guided by natural selection.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 9:55:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 9:01:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce?

I don't think anybody is trying to argue adaptability. Clearly life adapts, but then again, so does my lawnmower - the governor adjusts the throttle so the blade speed remains relatively constant through thick and thin lawn. The fact that my lawnmower has a governor does not mean it assembled itself, however. The fact that customers only select lawnmowers with governors does not mean that feature evolved, either.

Actually, it did evolve, since previous models surely did not have this characteristic built into the lawnmower. The word "Evolve" isnt restricted to a biological sense.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:10:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 9:51:24 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Here is why I think this is worth discussing: "selection" is an active process. It is a deliberate process. What we call "natural selection is no such thing. Indeed, it is the opposite of an active process. It is completely passive. It is simply differential survival and reproduction. It just happens. Some organisms survive. Some of the survivors reproduce.

"Selection" is not something that nature participates in at all. Nature is aimless and completely subject to deterministic laws. Nature does not make choices. It never "selects" anything. Therefore it is comletely illigitimate to ascribe the attribute of "selection" to what is ostensibly a purely natural process.

Why do Dawkins and company insist that the diversification of life is both purely natural and non-random? Because they understand that life is indeed a guided process! The teleological component of life is undeniable.

Natural selection is an oxymoron and the fool who insists that life is a completely natural process is a witness against himself.

So are you saying you would be more comfortable with "natural survival and increase in quantity of whatever is able to make more of itself before it is destroyed, and eventual decrease in quantity of whatever isn't able to reproduce before it is destroyed or what isn't able to reproduce as effectively as another thing competing for the same resources"? Because that's what people mean when they say natural selection, and it doesn't use the "S" word you seem to dislike so much.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
The_Kindly_King
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 9:01:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce?

I don't think anybody is trying to argue adaptability. Clearly life adapts, but then again, so does my lawnmower - the governor adjusts the throttle so the blade speed remains relatively constant through thick and thin lawn. The fact that my lawnmower has a governor does not mean it assembled itself, however. The fact that customers only select lawnmowers with governors does not mean that feature evolved, either.

Clearly lawnmowers have nothing to do with natural selection.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 9:51:24 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Here is why I think this is worth discussing: "selection" is an active process. It is a deliberate process. What we call "natural selection is no such thing. Indeed, it is the opposite of an active process. It is completely passive. It is simply differential survival and reproduction. It just happens. Some organisms survive. Some of the survivors reproduce.

Yes that is what we mean when we say selection.

"Selection" is not something that nature participates in at all. Nature is aimless and completely subject to deterministic laws. Nature does not make choices. It never "selects" anything. Therefore it is comletely illigitimate to ascribe the attribute of "selection" to what is ostensibly a purely natural process.

Why do Dawkins and company insist that the diversification of life is both purely natural and non-random? Because they understand that life is indeed a guided process! The teleological component of life is undeniable.

Natural selection is an oxymoron and the fool who insists that life is a completely natural process is a witness against himself.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 6:33:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I don't worship Ham and he is not my role model, but what he said last night struck me:

Natural Selection is not survival of the fittest; it's survival of the survivors.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 8:49:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello Dr. Head...

I don't know for sure where you are coming from, so rather than risk arguing against a strawman, I will give you my best direct answers to your questions...

It would seem you are misunderstanding natural selection if you seriously think evolution is an unguided process.

To be clear, here I am speaking specifically to a strict materialist metaphysic, such as the one Dawkins champions. In this metaphysic, the material world is causally closed. There can be no appeal to teleological processes unless physicality itself can be shown to exhibit such properties. Again, the word "selection" means to make deliberate, intentional choices. The metaphysical materialist has no appeal to such a process. Nor is there any rescue in the word "guided," because guided means to steer toward a pragmatic result. Thus to claim that evolution is guided (or not unguided) is to confess an abstract quality that lies completely outside of the naturalistic paradigm. The materialist simply cannot have it both ways; either evolution is a purely natural process or it is a guided process. There is an excluded middle.

this "unguided evolution makes absolutely no sense

I agree completely. Perhaps I am guilty of a bit of a quote mine here because I am lifting a partial sentence out of your larger discourse, but at least in this partial sentence you are making my point.

Now, given the context, I am sure that you (or, if not you, at least one other person in this thread) are advocating for the notion of evolution guided by a deity. This would rely on at least one of the following premises, and I intend to point out why these do not belong anywhere near evolutionary theory. Reply to the ones which apply to you, or tell me which one does actually apply to you:

I have to go with none of the above here, yet you do deserve an answer.
The point I would make begins with the origin of life. All evidence points to a Creator of life (and yes, this Creator is God, but that is a separate issue). The universal information that characterizes all living organisms and makes all life possible requires an intelligent agent at its source based on everything we know. Genetic selection must occur at the decision node level, prior to function. NS, on the other hand, can only "select" from among the fittest already programmed, already living organisms. As I have mentioned, this is, in reality, a completely passive process. It is not an active process in the least. This fact, along with the fact that genetic selection occurs prior to function at the decision node level where there is no escape from the reality that wise choices in pursuit of pragmatic (and not yet existing) function must be made, points to the indesepensible role of intelligent agency at the point of the origin of life.

It is at the origin of life that I make my stand. You are welcome to address this. In fact, I will soon be proposing a debate on this subject and would be honored if you would consider taking the opposing position.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 7:21:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 5:45:13 PM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
At 2/5/2014 9:01:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce?

I don't think anybody is trying to argue adaptability. Clearly life adapts, but then again, so does my lawnmower - the governor adjusts the throttle so the blade speed remains relatively constant through thick and thin lawn. The fact that my lawnmower has a governor does not mean it assembled itself, however. The fact that customers only select lawnmowers with governors does not mean that feature evolved, either.

Clearly lawnmowers have nothing to do with natural selection.

Natural Selection is a phrase make up of two words: 'Natural' and 'selection'. The meaning of the phrase is clearly that NS is like intelligent selection, only natural.

You cannot simultaneously claim that evolution is a natural process, and at the same time claim it's different from other natural things. By evolution theory, you know, EVERYTHING humans do, including buying lawnmowers, is the result of mutation and selection. Buying lawnmowers with governors either helps or hinders survival, or is just a sideways move.

I think all the dancing is because at some level you know the theory is utter nonsense, but you WANT it to remain valid.
This space for rent.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:54:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
NS is a bogus concept. Nature doesn't select or distinguish between traits. Adaptive traits of an organism will just as quickly fail when freak accudents occur. Nature is under no unction to preserve an organism with new traits. In fact, many species go extinct or are endangered despite NS.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:07:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 6:33:08 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't worship Ham and he is not my role model, but what he said last night struck me:

Natural Selection is not survival of the fittest; it's survival of the survivors.

Thats kinda like asking "Do olympic selection committees, select the best athletes, or just the winners of tournaments and competitions?"

Clearly there is an overlap. Clearly the winners of competitions are, in the vast majority of cases, the best athletes a country has to offer. You dont see the worst player, win a competition.

The fittest, end up survivng, just like the best athletes end up winning the competitions. Thats where the overlap comes from.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:27:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:21:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/5/2014 5:45:13 PM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
At 2/5/2014 9:01:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/5/2014 7:44:47 AM, The_Kindly_King wrote:
"Most of Natural Selection's conceptual models are incorrect. Pretty much all of their calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were largely unscientific."

So if this theory is wrong what did happen? The stronger did not survive, the more intelligent did not adapt and overcome, and the more adapted organism does not survive to reproduce?

I don't think anybody is trying to argue adaptability. Clearly life adapts, but then again, so does my lawnmower - the governor adjusts the throttle so the blade speed remains relatively constant through thick and thin lawn. The fact that my lawnmower has a governor does not mean it assembled itself, however. The fact that customers only select lawnmowers with governors does not mean that feature evolved, either.

Clearly lawnmowers have nothing to do with natural selection.

Natural Selection is a phrase make up of two words: 'Natural' and 'selection'. The meaning of the phrase is clearly that NS is like intelligent selection, only natural.

You cannot simultaneously claim that evolution is a natural process, and at the same time claim it's different from other natural things. By evolution theory, you know, EVERYTHING humans do, including buying lawnmowers, is the result of mutation and selection. Buying lawnmowers with governors either helps or hinders survival, or is just a sideways move.

I think all the dancing is because at some level you know the theory is utter nonsense, but you WANT it to remain valid.

Well, no, using lawnmowers is basically an analogy, and analogies are necessarily flawed because not all the characteristics are the same.

With regards to Lawnmowers, yes, it is an analogy towards natural selection, but not towards inherited genetic adaption. Lawnmowers do not replicate, they do not reproduce, they do not have DNA that is subject to mutations.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But thats as far as the comparison, goes.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:30:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:54:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
NS is a bogus concept. Nature doesn't select or distinguish between traits. Adaptive traits of an organism will just as quickly fail when freak accudents occur. Nature is under no unction to preserve an organism with new traits. In fact, many species go extinct or are endangered despite NS.

Well, sure. And this is what we would expect from a non-sentient, non-omniscient, unintelligent process that relies on a certain degree of randomness.

But are you saying that you dont believe in adaption?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 8:49:47 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
To be clear, here I am speaking specifically to a strict materialist metaphysic, such as the one Dawkins champions. In this metaphysic, the material world is causally closed. There can be no appeal to teleological processes unless physicality itself can be shown to exhibit such properties. Again, the word "selection" means to make deliberate, intentional choices. The metaphysical materialist has no appeal to such a process. Nor is there any rescue in the word "guided," because guided means to steer toward a pragmatic result. Thus to claim that evolution is guided (or not unguided) is to confess an abstract quality that lies completely outside of the naturalistic paradigm. The materialist simply cannot have it both ways; either evolution is a purely natural process or it is a guided process. There is an excluded middle.

No, and gravity is a good example of this. Gravity "Guides" the planets around a star. And yet, i think, most people would agree that gravity is a purely natural process that doesnt require an intelligence to intervene in order for it to work. We have a good understanding of how orbits work, how gravity works, etc. And yet, for all intents and purposes, gravity does "Guide".

I have to go with none of the above here, yet you do deserve an answer.
The point I would make begins with the origin of life. All evidence points to a Creator of life (and yes, this Creator is God, but that is a separate issue). The universal information that characterizes all living organisms and makes all life possible requires an intelligent agent at its source based on everything we know. Genetic selection must occur at the decision node level, prior to function. NS, on the other hand, can only "select" from among the fittest already programmed, already living organisms. As I have mentioned, this is, in reality, a completely passive process. It is not an active process in the least. This fact, along with the fact that genetic selection occurs prior to function at the decision node level where there is no escape from the reality that wise choices in pursuit of pragmatic (and not yet existing) function must be made, points to the indesepensible role of intelligent agency at the point of the origin of life.

Uh, no. First off, the genetic selection(kinda weird way to put it, but okay) can occur because of its function. Infact, I would say that this is mostly the case, because selection occurs based on function, and therefore the genetic selection occurs after the function is already established. A giraffe with a longer neck was not selected before its neck was longer, but after, and it was because of this function, that it was selected.

But I still dont know why this 'Begins" at the origin of life. If God didnt create the first single celled organism, and that the organism came by through natural abiogenesis, but God came in later and tinkered, began selecting himself rather than nature, then NS would be untrue but the origin of life would be irrelevant to this discussion.