Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory

On May 31, 6:04 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 6:37 pm, hersheyhv <hersh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

By now you must have read my other posts where I pointed out that
Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything
else.

SFW? Do you think that evolutionary science *stopped* when Darwin
wrote about it? Darwin is rightly honored for his role in initiating
the serious study of evolution. But his books are not treated by
scientists like the Bible or Koran are by fundamentalists. His ideas
have been further refined and some of his phrasing (including
"survival of the fittest") has largely been replaced by more accurate
phrases like "differential reproductive success". Darwin was not and
never was considered the font of all wisdom. His genetic ideas have
long since been discarded in favor of Mendelian ideas. Asking why he
didn't use the phrase "random mutation" is like asking why Newton did
not use the phrase "quantum mechanical". It is desperate and
pathetic.

Who then established the concept of "random drift"?

The basic ideas of "neutral evolution" were most fully initiated by
Motoo Kimura in the late 1960s. You might want to google on that
name.

Fact: Darwin never used the "Neutral Evolution". "Neutral Evolution"
is a technical jargon term that only has meaning if the you tell me
who is the individual that established this principle of "Neutral
Evolution".

Again. SFW? Neutral evolution is useful as a null hypothesis because
it tells us how much change is likely to occur in the *absence* of
selection. In the presence of selection one will either get
significantly *less* change (preservation of adaptive form for
selective reasons) or, much more rarely, significantly *more* change
(selective pressure for modification)

Presently it could mean anything. You know this stuff is
really fun, imagine we could all just invent our own phrases in
mathematics.... you know just willy nilly use technical jargon terms
like "Fourier Transform" without having to state who established it
and when. And when dealing with biological life we are dealing with
something so vast and complicated as a problem in Information theory
compared to the Fourier Transform that we can't even state the
problem....

Neutral evolution is quite mathematical in nature.

Another problem is the single usage of the word "Selection" without
anything getting "naturaled". Darwin was very clear what he meant by
it, he always refered to it in a the sense of a human doing some
"Selection".

So, are you explicitly denying that specific features (say
temperature) of the dumb, unintelligent environment can discriminate
between (select between) and differentially affect the reproductive
success of organisms with different phenotypes? Or are you merely
more interested in playing word games? I ask because *if* you agree
that features in the dumb unintelligent environment, like temperature,
can indeed differentially affect the reproductive success of organisms
in the same species with certain specific phenotypes you are, in fact,
agreeing that *selection* in the sense of some causal feature of the
environment differentially affecting the reproductive success of
different organismal phenotypes does not require any intelligent
actor. So, tell me exactly why you think differential *selection* by
a dumb unintelligent environmental feature never happens?

Darwin: "...and the latter process he attributes to man's power of
selection." By your statement:"....older mechanisms of evolution,
which involve selection of various sorts (including sexual)"
you again can't be using the word "selection" in the sense Darwin used
it, because your statement does'nt imply that some human did conscious
teleological "selections". . And what are these "older mechanisms of
evolution, which journal published these "older mechanisms" or are you
just using words for its rhetorical effect?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ...  All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five ... Selection acts to better ... Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to ... only force that drives evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ... Darwin said natural selection was the main but not the exclusive means ... racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution* ... of humans by the process of *natural* selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwins pragmatics?
    ... Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong. ... Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent. ... what Darwin meant since he knew not of genes and Darwin never used the ... What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwins pragmatics?
    ... Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong. ... Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent. ... what Darwin meant since he knew not of genes and Darwin never used the ... What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 1 billion people under Darwinist terror
    ... Natural selection that is amplified by human intervention still remains ... Ok, so when we discuss artificial selection, such as with the evolution ... the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. ... The Church Of Darwin ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading