Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1ed00de8-e4d4-4f55-9df2-d90fc41ac6a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f-a9db-63f8b281cc42

[...]

Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
fingers.  All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have
kids of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent
little finger).  

Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.

Wait just a minute here.  Why is the propagation of a trait not
microevolution?

Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to
improve, an organism, is he wrong?

Possibly*, but it is really beside the point. NS is not the
only force that drives evolution, thus it cannot be
conflated with evolution.

*NS has a number of aspects, one of which is the selection
of positive traits, which may not necessarily be
improvements to the organism, even though they may help
survival. An example that came to mind is the issue of dogs
sweating through their tongue. It may help retain moisture
in dry environments but it is really an improved cooling
method?

NS, obviously, also works against those characteristics that
lead to the organism failing to reproduce, or becoming
someones lunch.

Finally it is a mistake to think that NS leads to the
optimum result. Rather than survival of the fittest, it is
more like survival of the adequate, as a result of which the
far less than optimum--the vertebrate eye for example--is
enough of an advantage over the extant alternatives to
confer the advantage, even though there are better eyes out
there now, or in other creatures.

Bent fingers do not correspond to
'good' or 'improvement'.

Nor are they being naturally selected, but they are a
mutation that is spreading in a population, thus there is
evolution involved. Given that they are not a new species,
it must be that they are microevolutionary changes.

And may I remind that any accepted evolution
since 1859 has never existed except in the context of a proposed
mechanism. It seems as if you seek to isolate change apart from
causation. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. If evolutionists want
to call any propagation microevolution then fine. BUT for the sake of
accuracy, according to evolutionary authorities, like Darwin, the
mechanism of modification-evolution does not propagate injury.

True in Darwins day, but given that he had no idea of
genetics, then he could hardly be expected to account for
the varying methods by which genes mutate in his seminal
work.

 
Darwin, "Origin of Species" 1859:

Natural Selection

page 81:

"On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least
degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I
call Natural Selection."

page 84:

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life....Although
natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being,
yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of very
trifling importance, may thus be acted on."

I would like to stress that it doesn't matter to me, personally, if
microevolution causes non-beneficial traits. My only concern here is
to accurately communicate the claims of evolutionary theory. You need
to remember that I don't believe in, or accept, any of this crap.

Which apparently does not stop you misrepresenting it.
evolution is more than NS.

In a thousand generations a huge percentage of humans
will carry the Hoit bent little finger,insofar as it appears to be a
dominant gene (at which point straight little fingers will be reckoned a
deformity).  

Are you serious?

Natural selection IS working on this trait - it is neutral,

Cite....reference....please?

Common sense is enough. It is not being selected against,
and as it seems to be a dominant gene, that is enough.
Therefore NS is at work.

so natural selection has no effect on it, and it spreads slowly through
the population.  

You say NS "IS working" then you say NS "has no effect on it...."

Yep. It is not actively selecting against it, nor is it
accetuating it, the mechanism of dominant/recessive genes is
looking after that.


According to Darwin NS is not working on the trait at issue. Maybe I
have misunderstood your point?

But Darwin didn't know about dominant and recessive genes,
nor their mechanisms of mutation. Thus Darwin is considered
by very few people--other than creationists--as the last
word on any aspect of evolution. Science has moved on, it is
obvious that creationism has not kept pace.

[...]

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory
    ... Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything ... Do you think that evolutionary science *stopped* when Darwin ... The basic ideas of "neutral evolution" were most fully initiated by ... In the presence of selection one will either get ...
    (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