Natural selection is evolution?

[rittjc]

The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Of course, the OP has yet to understand that there are opportunities for "new information" to emerge, and not just with single-point mutations; but all those examples I gave above, and others.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

Natural selection kills off the "weaker" so thats why the weaker never become stronger in another context. You wipe out the possibility of the others. In one context, one life form has a benefit over the other. But in other contexts, the opposite is true. So there was no "absolute better, no absolute winner or loser". There is simply the chance one benefits in the first context but in the second context they are both dead. It just depends on the situation you are in. To say the weaker in context one has nothing to add and must move out of the way, if the tables turn, the stronger becomes the weaker and dies whereas the one opportunistically killed of, would have survived.

You think in too much in absolutes.

 

[rittjc]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?

Thanks.

(Because, you know, being precise about these things is inconvenient I know but might be a good goddamn start).

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less.

Take Male Pattern Baldness. It is passed from the mother to the daughter and manifests in her children. But if baldness is on the father's side it does not transfer to the daughter. Once, not in the daughter, her children, nor her daughter's children will deal with it. It was simply information eliminated. You can't call back information eliminated just because you need it to explain your philosophies of natural selection. Wishing does not bring it back.

 

[rittjc]

You certainly could.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong. And how could you have been an evolutionist and know virtually no actual facts about it?


Wrong. Except for the double negative "not foundation-less".


Wrong.


Reasonably intelligent people actually investigate and study things before they make claims about their function. So, have you any comments about the experimental verifications of Special Relativity I linked to?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...you can't be serious or expect others to take you so.

 

[rittjc]

Only the winners matter.



Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.

This this a semantic smoke screen? Something designs. Something expresses. You leave room for neither.

Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.

Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.

As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?

Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles. Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost.

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information. Stay away from software analogies, it is too much like DNA random destruction.

I can't even parse that.

Seek a new parser.

Nor that.

ditto

See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.

Ha ha...you can't be serious. Go to the AKC and ask them what happens when the keep the breed too pure. Only mutts tend to be healthy because DNA is reentered.

Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

Math mathematically the longer you reduce, the less your remainder.

Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.

How is that an intelligent response? You say I don't have a real idea of what I am talking about with a conspicuous absence of counter argument to make such a case. I'll stick with an explanation instead of just an insult.

I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/

Oh, now you are brilliant and we simply for that in the absence of evidence. Looks like more faith just like evolution.

Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.

Well if the shoe fits...

You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.

I am skeptical. This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand. You want the appearance of truth to be in the arena of high-mindedness so you can convince everyone they need you to explain life. I am finally beginning to weather the hubris of people like you. I used to be astonished, but convinced that pride goes before the fall, you have your own ideas to fear. This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate. You use condescension to cover the fact you can't answer simple principles that everyone can understand. Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense? You are like a priest that says you must come to him for salvation. You try to falsely corner the market of truth.

But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?

No, I am arguing that you already believe in magic and your deity is mother earth and your faith is evolution.

Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle. Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too.

 

[Mojo]

Natural selection is evolution?

Nope: variation + natural selection is evolution. You missed a bit when constructing your strawman.

 

[Schneibster]

It thinks people can only keep one idea in their heads at once, because that's all its pointy little head can hold. Bad Mojo. Naughty Mojo. You're going to make its brain explode.

 

[Meadmaker]

Everyone is probably familiar with the analogy of the monkeys and typewriters typing out Shakespeare's plays. Of course, if one of the monkeys got lucky and typed, "Methinks it is like a weasel", he wouldn't know it, so you need an editor. The editor picks the bits that sound good.

So, who creates the information? The monkeys, or the editor? It's the editor that does it. Also, note that the editor doesn't have to be intelligent. As long as some pass the test, and others don't, the information content of the survivors will be greater.

Mutations (and similar phenomena like recombination) that lead to new forms of DNA are the monkeys. Natural selection is the editor. That is the sense in which natural selection creates information. Also, in the case of evolution (but not with the monkeys), once the editor finds something he likes, he makes lots of copies, and those become the starting point for the next round, so information is constantly added.

So, it's true that natural selection doesn't create new bits and pieces of life, but it does aid in the turning of random bits into information.

 

[Meadmaker]

your deity is mother earth

And a mighty fine deity she is, I say.

(Although, I prefer nature as a whole for a deity. Why restrict yourself to just one planet?)

 

[Meadmaker]

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less.

Surely you understand this isn't always the case? There is variation, and mutations do occur. You have talked about mutations as harmful. Regardless of whether or not that happens to be true in every case, those mutants did not come from their parents. They "just happened".

I'm a bit familiar with Huntington's Disease. Not long ago, they found the exact sequence of DNA that causes it. There's too many examples of one amino acid in the sequence, compared to the normal gene. From genetic and historical studies, scientists have concluded that its origin was with a single individual, probably a Portuguese sailor. (That last part's from memory. I saw it on the History Channel once. Could be wrong.)

So, that Portuguese sailor had a gene, but neither of his parents had that gene.

ETA: Wrong about Portuguese sailor. The sailor in question was the ancestor of a very large extended family in Venezuela, where there is a high concentration of the disease, but the sailor was not the original carrier.

 

[articulett]

Surely you understand this isn't always the case? There is variation, and mutations do occur. You have talked about mutations as harmful. Regardless of whether or not that happens to be true in every case, those mutants did not come from their parents. They "just happened".

I'm a bit familiar with Huntington's Disease. Not long ago, they found the exact sequence of DNA that causes it. There's too many examples of one amino acid in the sequence, compared to the normal gene. From genetic and historical studies, scientists have concluded that its origin was with a single individual, probably a Portuguese sailor. (That last part's from memory. I saw it on the History Channel once. Could be wrong.)

So, that Portuguese sailor had a gene, but neither of his parents had that gene.

Huntingtons is a run of triple repeats like Fragile X... it is more likely to "run" when passed from the father (symptoms show up earlier and worse).

But Huntingtons tend to show symptoms after a person has had children, so it can't be selected out except by prenatal diagnosis... a lot of people don't want to know if they themselves have it....much less their kids.

What more evidence do you need to show you that it's not the randomness that it's the problem... it's what sticks and multiplies over time. Nobody calls that random except those uninformed about natural selection. The problem really seems to be that YOU don't understand this. You don't understand how the randomness is the most useful obfuscation technique because you don't seem to understand or convey understanding about how the best mutations only have to happen once to spread through populations and guarantee their survival in future descendants?

Quit being stuck on the word random. Just go back and read cyborg. You truly are missing it. Rttjc is too dumb to understand... but you are not. Look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Don't you understand how the "new information" (mutation) was selected and multiplied through the population. Not Randomly. Male embryo survival necessitated that mutation in the future... and they pass that mutation on to the their sons... Don't you see? A thousand years from now there could be new species but they'll still carry that mutation because it was necessary in their ancestry... the parasite will evolve or die out as well. Don't confuse yourself and others by needing to call this random. Nobody with any credibility does because it confuses--it does not clarify. What more proof than T'ai, rttjc, and Behe do you need?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I have no time for infantile responses. You lack the ability to conduct intelligent discourse. I have no interest in your kind. Its time to grow up.

You're the one posting idiotic arguments that bear no relation to reality. You have proven nothing but that you don't understand evolution.

Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.

Except that "harmful" referred to the effect on the organism, while "destructive" referred to the effect on the gene pool. So you are therefore revealed to be a blatant liar, just like the vast majority of creationist apologists.

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information.

You're the one playing equivocation games. According to you, information refers to variability when in comes to natural selection, but when dealing with the fact that mutations increase variability, suddenly information switches to the amount of data, without regard to variation. Typical creationist BS.

Seek a new parser.

Arrogantly refusing to admit that you have trouble with the English language doesn't win you any points. For starters, when you say "How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?" the comma is superfluous. And you repeatedly fail to use hyphens, such as when you say "science contradicting faith" rather than "science-contradicting faith". Those two phrases mean completely different things.

This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate... Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense?

Ah, so first you complain that we're not being polite enough for you, then you call us a bunch of lying a**holes.

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!

If so (and I don't know of any examples), it's almost surely because they are tired of creationists manipulating the term "random".

Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it.

Actually, creationists not only have a definition, they MORE than one, as can be seen in this thread. When discussing natural selection, information is the total number of different genes, and hence cannot be increased by natural selection. When discussing mutations, information is the number of genes, different or not, and hence mutation cannot increase information. Since neither natural selection nor mutation can increase information, evolution is false! "Information" means whatever is convenient at any particular point in the argument.

 

[Taffer]

Need I add my 0.2c? Does he have any substance to his argument?

Because skimming the OP there isn't.

 

[articulett]

Need I add my 0.2c? Does he have any substance to his argument?

Because skimming the OP there isn't.

No...he's Fred Phelps crazy and angry with the talking points of Hovind and Behe mashed together and mixed with a walloping dose of creationist arrogance/ignorance-- fortified by T'ai... and Rodney too, I think.

The Same ol' same ol'.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You missed a few.

Let's go through the original post and highlight all the incorrect and misleading statements.

Natural selection is evolution?

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

If we snip out the nonsense, we are left with:

But why? Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. That's [sic] is non-sequitur.

Though possibly a dog-breeder may argue the second point.

 

[CFLarsen]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection

Appeal to emotion.

There is nothing to "admit". Acknowledging that evolution is also about mutation, adaptation, gene flow, etc., is not a concession.

, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Misrepresenting opposing view.

Evolution isn't random. It isn't a random collection of atoms, somehow resulting in species, with humans as the end result.

Go figure!

What is it about Creationists that compel them to lie about Evolution?

 

[Taffer]

No...he's Fred Phelps crazy and angry with the talking points of Hovind and Behe mashed together and mixed with a walloping dose of creationist arrogance/ignorance-- fortified by T'ai... and Rodney too, I think.

The Same ol' same ol'.

Just what I suspected.

I like the new avatar, btw. Gave me a chuckle.

 

[articulett]

What is it about Creationists that compel them to lie about Evolution?

Their intelligent designer prefers 'em stupid and dishonest...

 

[fuelair]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think the one you want is .

 

[cyborg]

This this a semantic smoke screen? Something designs. Something expresses. You leave room for neither.

Uh no. Through I doubt explaining the difference to you would be worth the effort.

Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.

Yeah... because actually defining what 'harmful' and 'destructive' actually mean as far as an actual formal and precise specification would mean you couldn't babble on in generalities without ever having to put up or shut up.

Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles.

And reveals a huge penis.

Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost.

Sorry doofus - that is all rather dependant on the encoding one uses for bits. For example there is an esolang that encodes a valid program for each and every binary sequence.

What do you think of that doofus?

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information.

Oh then please inform me oh wise one.

Stay away from software analogies, it is too much like DNA random destruction.

What?

Seek a new parser.

How about you make some sense eh?

Ha ha...you can't be serious. Go to the AKC and ask them what happens when the keep the breed too pure. Only mutts tend to be healthy because DNA is reentered.

Uh... no. That's not how it works doofus.

Math mathematically the longer you reduce, the less your remainder.

Right - you don't understand a goddamn thing.

Got it.

How is that an intelligent response? You say I don't have a real idea of what I am talking about with a conspicuous absence of counter argument to make such a case.

Well you would think that of course but then you are presuming you are presenting rock-solid arguments when they are lame from the start.

I'll stick with an explanation instead of just an insult.

Yeah. Whatever.

Oh, now you are brilliant

That's right doofus. I'm brilliant and you are not.

and we simply for that in the absence of evidence. Looks like more faith just like evolution.

Hold up a sec... are you trying to tell me that faith is a bad thing?

Well if the shoe fits...

So you are spending your time arguing that faith in evolution is bad... therefore have faith in god!

Yay! That's perfectly sensible and not logically flawed in anyway!

PRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAISE JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBUSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!1111oneONE!!!!111

I am skeptical.

Skeptical of gods much?

No? Didn't think so.

Go sit back down doofus - I ain't buying that.

This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand.

You might find it more effective if you used things that were true. And who the **** is this everyone you are referring to? Because so far you have come up with some pretty ****ed up nonsense.

You want the appearance of truth to be in the arena of high-mindedness so you can convince everyone they need you to explain life.

Yeah - what the **** does that mean exactly?

I am finally beginning to weather the hubris of people like you.

You go boy! PRAISE JEBUS! Face the adversity of the heathen and be rewarded with eternal life!

I used to be astonished, but convinced that pride goes before the fall, you have your own ideas to fear.

The irony here is funny.

This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate.

I can't endure it because you won't give it ****tard.

When you're ready to have a proper debate that will change. Until then you are my new plaything.

You use condescension to cover the fact you can't answer simple principles that everyone can understand.

No - I use facts to point out your faulty premises are wrong from the outset.

Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense?

If I were afraid of that then I would be pissing myself scared right now because you are quite adroit at spouting gibberish.

You are like a priest that says you must come to him for salvation. You try to falsely corner the market of truth.

Now, now we can't have that can we? That market is closed by GAWD ALMIGHTY - competitors will be burned alive.

No, I am arguing that you already believe in magic and your deity is mother earth and your faith is evolution.

And I'm arguing that you're projecting your own religiosity onto me because your small mind is unable to comprehend the world in any other way.

It is quite is pathetic and sad.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle.

Firstly I doubt that because they are hardly new ideas. (You are almost certainly a liar - most of your ilk are).
Secondly your ideas are **** mate. Sorry.

Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too.

I know I am but what are you?

I'll know you're ready for a real debate when you admit you don't know ****.