Natural Selection doesn't drive evolution

reply to post by john_bmth

reply to post by Arbitrageur

People that do that and then blame others for not understanding them have serious opportunities for self-improvement through introspection.

i am not looking for a life-coach. thanks for the lecture, dad.

i was not aware that "biocomputer" is a word in common use. by using that word i unwittingly worked against the point i was trying to make. the two of you have launched into a tirade over nothing.

earlier, john was preaching to me a bit about the use of metaphors and the strict use of definitions in science. i do not completely disagree with this but i would very much like to point out something else:

*WE* write the dictionaries. usage determines meaning, not a book: period.

there is not a discovery made by science that does not begin from the "sloppy" use of metaphors. as the story goes, after the apple fell on newton's head, he looked at the moon and decided that the moon was also falling...bit of magic...law of universal gravitation. (but wait! an apple is not a moon. how can such comparisons be made! we have strict definitions for these things. heretic!)

the isomorphic mapping of one system onto another is one of the principal qualities of intelligence, and a foundation of science. you seem have convinced yourselves that the knowledge base i am working from is somehow flawed and that i am "making up words" and concepts to suit my own needs. that is simply not the case. unlike many of the new-age-sciensy preachers around this place, the ideas i have presented here have a solid theoretical and empirical base.

as such, i cannot help but take your critisisms personal. your deliberate and gang-like shutting down of legitimate speculative pondering is shameful. would it have been so difficult and horrible to not make this a pissing match? to say something constructive? NO! WE MUST PISS!


so much for the "alternative" science forum.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Natural Selection is a blind process that happens after the gene has reached the environment.

you seem to be driving this point hard, but is definitely not your best angle as it does reflect a lack of understanding of the genomic mechanisms involved (or you are not communicating effectively).

the strength of your argument is in the self-correction and genetic code. these are truly befuddling mysteries and even the best laid out explanations I have read for their emergence are nothing more than works of fiction.

but, naturally, we are to assume that the same principles which guide evolution must certainly be at the root of these mysteries. the data will one day show! help us evolution! help!

(please note that I have given evolution due credit earlier in this thread.)

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The process the produces the gene is more advanced than any factory on earth. Randomness can produce a snowflake but it can't produce a error correcting code that produces a product.

Because you say so? I hope you are aware of the fact that DNA is self assembling(base pairing). Put cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine in a bottle and you will get DNA fragments.

Now those trucks were produced by a process that needed an intelligent mind. This process is full of codes and instructions on how to build the trucks.

Well, take a truck where the base components are capable of assembling themselves into a compound and give it 3 billion years of stupid try and error by accident and you will get hundreds of functional trucks and millions of ones that didn't work.

Why just biology?

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. "

Max Planck 1944.

I just like that quote, argue away.

Originally posted by tgidkp
i was not aware that "biocomputer" is a word in common use. by using that word i unwittingly worked against the point i was trying to make.

Well there you go, if you had used that word to begin with instead of claiming a cell is a computer, then we would be communicating effectively, which is the goal in a discussion forum; it's not a pissing contest.

I don't have a problem with saying a biocomputer does computing. But you were referring to people as being obtuse for not understanding the usage of the words you had used BEFORE you introduced the biocomputer terminology.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
A mutation occurs that gives the species a color of fur that makes it easier to survive. This species will grow will the reddish color species will not and may go extinct.

This all occurs on a genetic level. Natural Selection is a blind process that happens after the gene has reached the environment.

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument.

Let's say the colors are red and brown, and you have 1000 of each you introduce into an ecosystem.

After 6 months, 200 of the red survive and 600 of the brown survive through natural selection, and then it's mating season.

So now the genetic makeup of what's in the ecosystem population has 3 times as many brown as it does red. Therefore the process of natural selection did influence the genetic makeup of the population.

It is BOTH an end result of the previous generation, AND an input into the genetic makeup of the next generation. So just saying it's an "end result" is really an incomplete statement when the process is iterative like that.

Or to refer to the Toyota car example you gave, the cars don't mate and breed. So that does help make the cars an end result alone, and not an input to the next generation of cars, which is why the analogy isn't apt with reproducing creatures.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I do hate to reply for others, but...

it sounds like his argument is similar to the protein folding problem, a long-time obsession of mine.

in short, given a polypeptide chain of sufficient length, there exist a prohibitively large number of possible conformations (into the trillions) to yield that protein's known functional conformation by purely mechanical analysis. a protein has only one active shape.

considering this along with the one-to-one correlation of DNA to polypeptide sequuence, it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain molecular genetics via the currently accepted modes such as single nucleotide mutation, recombination, and transposition of functional domains.

without a better explanation of protein folding forthcoming, the current mechanisms of evolution will ultimately fall flat.

to complete matrix's argument: the one-in-a-trillion protein conformation can be interpreted as a "finished product" which is only "brought to market" after the development stage is complete.

but the question remains: what is going on in the development stage?

reply to post by tgidkp


You are arguing the utterly debunked concept of irreducible complexity. There is absolutely nothing in evolutionary history that has been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. Many creationists and ID proponents have tried, all have failed. There is no scientific basis for it whatsoever.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The problem is you're still trying to turn natural selection into something it's not. Natural selection is not magic. It's a blind process that occurs after the gene has reached the environment. The process to produce genes isn't random. It doesn't go through any trial and error. The gene reaches the environment fit unless a mutation occurs then it can be beneficial, neutral or harmful. Some can or can't survive in the environment and that's random.

If I take a grill from a Lexus and try to put it on a Mercedes, this just mean these traits are mixed in the environment. That doesn't negate the codes, instructions, information and intelligence needed in order for these traits to reach the environment.

If a species with reddish brown fur mixes with a species with a species with just brownish fur and they produce an offspring that can survive in the environment better than it's parents then the population of that species will grow at a faster rate via reproduction. Is this evolution? No, it's natural selection. A blind process that occurs after the genes have reached the environment. Evolution begins on a genetic level.

A lot of people just talk about what happens to species on a Phenotype level. If you just look at it from that stand point then of course it's random. It just reacts to it's environment. You have to look at the genetic process that that brought these different traits to the environment. This is a genetic process more advanced than any computer or factory the world has ever seen.

Species couldn't evolve over time without things like transcription and error correction that occurs on a genetic level before it reaches the phenotype and is subject to the environment.

Here's another illustration.

Let's say you take a book. You then shuffle the words of that book. This is a random shuffle. Over time, this book produces a sentence that wasn't in the book to begin with. Is this a new sentence? No, because the words were fully formed before they reached the environment.

Say every time a new sentence forms a new book is made that contains this sentence. Some of the books apply to the environment and they get copied over and over again, while some of these books don't apply to the environment so they eventually go extinct.

At the end of the day the random shoveling didn't produce anything without the fully formed words. How did the fully formed words reach the environment?

It's the same with evolution. Some try to act like natural selection produces new species but it doesn't. The genes reach the environment fully formed. So some genes mix and some don't survive but the fully formed genes that reach the environment are the foundation of evolution. This process is more advanced than any computer or factory.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Natural Selection is just one Aspect of the Law Of Attraction...

LOA rules your drives but not so much ones' intellectual desires

reply to post by john_bmth


well there you go pissing again. for someone who seems to be so in favor of precise semantics, your statement here contains a shocking number of absolutes.

no. again you are attempting to narrow my argument into a magical worldview.

my claim is simply that the cell is able to shunt the complexity in such a way as to "recognize" a true statement in its language from a false one.

anthropomorphic terms as "recognize" are used all too often by biologists who will quickly denounce the implications of such a term. so let me be clear: I mean that cells recognize well-formed proteins and DNAs in a fashion quite similar to the reaction of your brain when you see the face of a friend.

a corollary of such a claim would be that there is a self-recursive nature to the structure of its information network which has not yet been detected by researchers. it is my belief that the reason that it has not been found is because the discovery of a "self-symbol" (I,me) would shake the foundations of everything we know about the dumb blind mechanical universe.

it is merely the appearance of intelligence (syntropy) at its own reletive meso-level in the universe.


your assumption that my argument must rest on a shaky bottom is not working out well for you. please stop it and engage in the discussion.

reply to post by tgidkp


Your argument is convoluted and muddled. You keep insinuating intelligence (and in a completely unsubstantiated manner) yet you never seem to commit to the idea. So enough beating around the bush, what is your point?

Oh, and by the way, if you respond in such a juvenile and defensive manner when someone disagrees and challenges you, why are you posting your thoughts in a public forum?

reply to post by john_bmth


I am glad that we have finally arrived at this point.

you have again elected to posit your assumed superior opinion. but i will take what you have said to mean, "this is an argument which I have never heard before and, insofar as I am able to understand, I cannot immediately identify any faults in it."

on the contrary, I enjoy getting challenged and having heated arguments. I will not stand for, even in a public forum, having my position dismissed wholesale, which is what you have attempted to do repeatedly.

just admit it: you didn't come here to discuss. you came here to piss all over other peoples hard earned opinions.

muddled and convoluted?! pfffft. you didn't even try to understand.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Natural Selection is a blind process that happens after the gene has reached the environment.

Yes, and Natural Selection has a guiding effect on which genes propagate, and which die out.

If a species with reddish brown fur mixes with a species with a species with just brownish fur and they produce an offspring that can survive in the environment better than it's parents then the population of that species will grow at a faster rate via reproduction. Is this evolution? No, it's natural selection.

Natural Selection (Sexual Selection) is one of the Driving Processes of Evolution.

To say that Natural Selection is not Evolution is about as ignorant as you can get of the topic of evolution.

reply to post by tgidkp


The fact you seem utterly incapable of having a mature discussion is your problem. If your ego cannot take legitimate criticism, I'd suggest you stop posting here. Every time someone disagrees with you, you stamp your feet like a petulant child. This is a discussion forum, if people disagree with you or demonstrate what you say to be false, you will be challenged. If you do not like having your opinions challenged, stop airing them on a public forum.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You said:

Natural Selection (Sexual Selection) is one of the Driving Processes of Evolution.

To say that Natural Selection is not Evolution is about as ignorant as you can get of the topic of evolution.

Wrong.

I never said Natural Selection wasn't a process within evolution but evolution starts with a genetic process. I know why some want to elevate and focus on natural selection. It's because it is a random, blind process. So if natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, then evolution must be a random and blind process.

This is silly and lacks any logic and reason but it's understandable because some people want to "believe" everything is the result of a blind, random process.

Natural selection occurs when genes reach the environment. Things like natural selection and reproduction occur after these traits that began on a genetic level reach the phenotype. So acting like natural selection is magic is just silly.

Natural selection is like saying if you put two people in a wrestling ring and one is a 300 pound wrestler and the other is a 98 pound computer programmer then in this environment the wrestler will win out and survive. The same thing would happen if you put them into the environment of a software company except the computer programmer will thrive in that environment. But how did they reach these environments?

The genetic process that allowed the wrestler and the computer programmer to reach the environment is more complex than any computer or factory in the world. I know people want to act like we magically appeared on earth via natural selection but again, that makes no sense.

So with your truck theory your saying your INTELLIGENCE. Is you having cash and you buying the truck,but wait your intelligence or cash failed and you didnt even pick the right truck. So, use your intelligence and clean this up allitle. In my opinion evolution is the opposite of having the cash to buy a truck and choosing to buy it. Infact anyone even the least intelligent of a person could round up some cash and go out and buy the best truck.

reply to post by john_bmth


in other words, if you john are not permitted to dominate the discussion, any subsequent responses will be read as "juvinile", "muddled", etc, and will be summarily tossed in the garbage bin.

I think you may need to reassess the maturity levels on exhibit here.

I have posted a LARGE amount of science related information in this thread. you have not even once.

I think you may need to reassess your own level of contribution to this forum.

your problem is that you have mistaken your sniping for, as you call it, "legitimate critisism". I also suggest that you do not continue to post in this forum.