Fun with Evolutionists

[fool]

What's the question?
"How come people don't have wings growing out of their heads?"
Cause their hats wouldn't fit.
Duh.

[Viktor Scott]

I noticed all of you chickens have chickened out on my challenge question.........anyone care to stick up for your piece of garbage theory and answer my question?

Why should anyone waste their time with you when you cannot even provide a legitimate answer to a single challenge that was premised directly on one of the claims you make that is central to your preferred fantasy?

[Minnesota]

Minnesota contrasted 'change' to 'origins' most likely meaning that the ToE does not deal with origins of life, only with how lifeforms change - and that latter not relating to an individual organism, but to which lifeforms existed at some specific time. This is the standard definition, and of course we can use someb Thomistic rhetoric to give a definition that'll take up 20 pages without anyone getting any wiser, but what would the point be?

- FreezBee

Exactly!

Thank you FB.

As we often see on Tweb, people who pretend not to understand are just looking to play games, using others for their amusement. I've got better things to do.

[Roy]

You wouldn't mind a slight addendum then, would you?

Not at all

The main level of selection is the gene level. Genes exist for much longer than otganisms, why the organism level is not the level, where selection occurs. Also consider that the same gene may occur in organisms from different species. The gene is here considered to be a particular DNA pattern, not the DNA molecule, of course.

Of course. And naturally I agree that the same gene can occur in different organisms, even across species, and that genes last far longer than the otganisms they reside in.

But still, it is the organisms, or packages of genes, that are affected by natural selection, not the individual genes. A newly mutated gene can't survive selection, no matter how suitable it is, if the package it's in is otherwise untenable. In the long run, yes, some genes will survive and others will not. But that is indirect selection, not natural selection, which works on organisms packages of genes.

It couldn't really be otherwise, since natural selection was discovered before genes were.

Maybe it's just too vague a question.

Roy

[supersport]

The organism, when viewed as the outcome of a collection of genes.

Genes plus environmental factors (nature + nurture) contribute to the development of an organism; natural selection determines how successfully an organism's genes (as a package) are passed on. Individual genes or specific combinations of genes may have sufficient effect as to greatly affect an organism's reproductive potential, by e.g. causing cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome or haemophilia, but it is still the organism, complete with all it's genes, that gets selected.

Kin selection/altruism does not change this; in cases where an organism acts in away that assists others which share its genes (e.g. by raising nephews, or letting itself be eaten by its children) selection is still operating at the organism level rather than at the gene level since kin selection acts to propagate the organism's genes as a whole, rather than individually.

There are a few possible arguments for higher levels of selection, notably in hive, colony or tribal species, where natural selection may operate en masse, but there is usually either sufficient interchange of fertile members between groups, or so few fertile individuals (e.g. queen bees), that that it can still be considered selection of individuals.

The above is of course just my hopefully well-informed opinion, and others may correct me.

The reason no-one else has answered is not likely to be that they couldn't, but more probably some combination of

1. not expecting you to understand the answer
2. not expecting you to read the answer
3. not expecting you to honestly evaluate the answer
4. not being willing to waste their time on such a pathetic dilettante
5. not having recovered from your exposition on Atlantean civilisation and Terran intumescence
6. not possessing sufficent ennui (or too much)

Roy

The day I chicken out debating you is the day cows fly....but I do applaud you for your willingness to go out on a limb, only so I can shoot it down:

------------------------------------------------------------

Forty years of analysis have finally made it quite clear that the gene as such could never be the direct target of selection.

Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is Pg.280


S.J. Gould:

"Still, I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins's attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them -- direct visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly . It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger, better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or more beautiful to behold.

If in favoring a stronger body, selection acted directly upon a gene for strength, then Dawkins might be vindicated. If bodies were unambiguous maps of their genes, then battling bits of DNA would display their colors externally and selection might act upon them directly . But bodies are no such thing. S.J. Gould The Panda's Thumb Pg. 91.

Can I hear an Amen from the Choir????:::


Genes do not dictate to traits. Their actions may correlate with new traits, but blind actions of genes themselves don't cause new traits. Genes are modifiers of morphology -- not creators of new morphology. I dare you to show me one random mutation that ever created a new, novel and beneficial body part.

By the way....knowing that genes work in large groups, and knowing that individual genes don't dictate individual traits....and knowing that there are billions of compounds and thousands of enzmes and millions of different cells and numerous bodily fuctions and structures to be dictated by only 25,000 genes, if you did some simple division you could determine that genes don't tell the story of the complexity of the human body. And since they don't tell the story, then how could they be the object of selection?

In order for genes to be the object of selection, they would all have to translate into new or better bits of morphology that made a difference of fitness in an organism. You'd have to have a strict tie from gene to physiology -- and we know that doesn't happen because the same exact genes can often be expressed in numerous ways.

The reality is: The group or species is the object of selection. This is where real competition exists and where real differences in fitness happen. I'm right on board with this molecular lab on this:

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

By the way, Gould agrees with me that the group or species is the object of selection.


Isn't common sense a wonderful thing!!!!!!!!!!

[Ursus maritimus]

By the way, Gould agrees with me that the group or species is the object of selection.

Actually, Gould wrote that the group or species is an object of selection. He still considered the individual to be the main unit of selection.

Isn't common sense a wonderful thing!!!!!!!!!!

And exclamation points, too, it would seem. All you need now to make you posts really stand out is to use ALL CAPS.

[Roy]

The day I chicken out debating you is the day cows fly....but I do applaud you for your willingness to go out on a limb, only so I can shoot it down:

... by posting a quote from Gould that exactly matches what I said???

Here's what I said: The organism, when viewed as the outcome of a collection of genes.
Here's what Gould said: Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly . It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies.

Complete and total agreement - but you think you've shot me down.

By the way, Gould agrees with me that the group or species is the object of selection.

But that quote says 'Selection views bodies', not 'Selection views species'

Furrfu, but you're stupid.

Roy

[supersport]

... by posting a quote from Gould that exactly matches what I said???

Here's what I said: The organism, when viewed as the outcome of a collection of genes.
Here's what Gould said: Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly . It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies.

Complete and total agreement - but you think you've shot me down.



But that quote says 'Selection views bodies', not 'Selection views species'

Furrfu, but you're stupid.

Roy

Listen close:

Genes do not determine the complexity of the human body. There is no gene for digestive enzymes or brain cells. Thus, there is no reasoning in saying that genes are the object of selection. If you want to say that the phenotype, based on the genetic makeup, is the object of selection, then fine ----- but that's not what you're saying....you are saying that genes act in isolation to form new parts, and these parts are selected because of the isolated action of one gene.........but that is exactly what Gould and Mayr -- and me -- are arguing against.

Keeping this in mind....here's Gould's quote again.....

Still, I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins's attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them -- direct visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly . It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger, better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or more beautiful to behold.

If in favoring a stronger body, selection acted directly upon a gene for strength, then Dawkins might be vindicated. If bodies were unambiguous maps of their genes, then battling bits of DNA would display their colors externally and selection might act upon them directly . But bodies are no such thing. S.J. Gould The Panda's Thumb Pg. 91.


By the way, you do realize that by standing by the genes as the objects of selection that you are backing yourself into a corner because the fossil record does not show phyletic gradualism, which is what a dawkins-style, gene-based evolution would require. Instead, the fossil record shows long periods of stasis, puntuated by rapid change. This is why Gould came up with his theory, to fit it around the unfortunate reality of the fossil record. You are basically saying that Gould is wrong, that the fossil record shows long, gradual lineages leading from one type of animal to another.

So, I'll ask you again.....what is the object of selection?

[lao tzu]

Listen close:

Once again, our hypocritical friend, you're making a demand you are not willing to fill yourself. Had you actually read the post you have quoted, you would have noted that your response is entirely non sequitur.

There was a time when you could actually stir an interesting discussion, supersport, even if you were never actually capable of contributing in any other fashion. It seems you've lost even that minimal ability now.

But the crash is still fascinating.

[easyboy201]

In Supe's case, he does tend to confuse the two. When I speak of the ToE, I'm referring to natural selection: if I had to categorize "origins science," I would also be including deep-time astronomy, geology, the Big Bang, and a few other things here and there.

But Natural Selection itself isn't origins science, correct? So then everyone might be talking about different things on this thread?

[easyboy201]

Exactly!

Thank you FB.

As we often see on Tweb, people who pretend not to understand are just looking to play games, using others for their amusement. I've got better things to do.

But what is a discussion with ambigious terms? ;)

[easyboy201]

Once again, our hypocritical friend, you're making a demand you are not willing to fill yourself. Had you actually read the post you have quoted, you would have noted that your response is entirely non sequitur.

There was a time when you could actually stir an interesting discussion, supersport, even if you were never actually capable of contributing in any other fashion. It seems you've lost even that minimal ability now.

But the crash is still fascinating.

Owch, the nasty abusive ad homenim. Really doesn't have any place in such a serious scientific discussion, don't ya think? ;)

[Minnesota]

Owch, the nasty abusive ad homenim. Really doesn't have any place in such a serious scientific discussion, don't ya think? ;)

"Such a serious scientific discussion" ???? Supersport is incapable of carrying on a serious scientific discussion, a fact he has repeatedly reaffirmed, so your objection rings hollow. However, if you seriously believe supersport's posts amount to serious scientific discussion, please prove us wrong and have one with him. It'll serve you right for playing games.

[supersport]

Once again, our hypocritical friend, you're making a demand you are not willing to fill yourself. Had you actually read the post you have quoted, you would have noted that your response is entirely non sequitur.

There was a time when you could actually stir an interesting discussion, supersport, even if you were never actually capable of contributing in any other fashion. It seems you've lost even that minimal ability now.

But the crash is still fascinating.

I realize you generally say things just to hear your head rattle, but what exactly did I say that was a non-sequitur?

[rogue06]

Owch, the nasty abusive ad homenim. Really doesn't have any place in such a serious scientific discussion, don't ya think? ;)

The frustration factor with super has reached an all-time high at the moment. Tolerance for either willful foolishness or gross stupidity (I'm not accusing you of either) is very low as a result. His last thread, Mind-blowing Evidence for a New Creation, which he just scurried away from (as usual), really left people scratching their heads seriously wondering about his mental state.