Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est

[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Gerard wrote:

<cut to one point>

According to evolution, miscopies during cell replication (random
mutations) are the cause for all of life's end product species
today. Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became
predominant by pure chance through genetic drift and then more
accessible to key regulators for trial and error utilization, each
of these is responsible for all of the diverse and complex
lifeforms observed on earth today. This is not survival of the
fittest, but survival of the miss-est. The fittest, those who made
no mistakes, couldn't keep up with the advantages that the others
who made mistakes obtained, so they went extinct. Is this rational
science? No. Is this real science? No.
The citizens around the world are expected to believe that the exact
same random mutation is just suppose to target a segment of a
particular population, like fish. If the random mutation is actually
random, then why does the same mutation target the same segment of
fish and continue to target just that same segment for millions of
years in order to change that segment of fish into land animals?
Fascinating confluence of different misunderstandings here. Madman and
Gerard both have no clue, but in quite different ways. Gerard seems to
think that natural selection doesn't exist, and all evolution is
drift. Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist,
and all evolution is multiple, directed mutations.

It's really quite simple. If an advantageous mutation occurs in a
single individual, that individual will on average have more
offspring than other individuals, and so the mutation will increase in frequency in
the population. And thus adaptive evolution happens.

Here you say the mutation is advantageous and occurs in a single individual

That is the way natural selection works. Some mutations are advantageous. The same mutation may happen in multiple individuals, if there's a big enough population. For example, the size of the human population is enough that all possible point mutations probably happen at least once every year, somewhere. But that's not a big part of the scenario.

Many creationists, in fact, accept that natural selection works. It's
microevolution, you know.

If you ask me that is selective mutation,
not random mutation.
Yes, that would be, if it happened, or if anyone claimed that it
happened, which it doesn't, and they don't.

The same process is suppose to happen with natural
selection. Natural selection is suppose to target the same segment
of fish for millions of years to slowly change that segment into
land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural
selection is a random force, such as weather for instance. The
natural selection itself may not be random, but the forces that can
cause natural selection seem to be or can be.
I'm not sure what this objection is supposed to mean. Natural
selection doesn't "target" anything. It's something that happens. A
change in habits can cause a change in environment, which makes particular
features advantageous that were not advantageous previously, and so
the population evolves in that direction through selection. Which
results in a further change to the experience environment, and so on.

Here you say the population evolves.

Which is it. The population, or the individual.

Individuals have mutations. Populations evolve. Individual mutations do contribute to the evolution of the population, but they are not the evolution itself.

Then there is genetic drift. We are expected to believe that (all) of
just a segment of fish had the exact same genetic drift. Has anyone
observed anything that "drifts" unguided have the same outcome each
time? A bottle drifting in water will end up in a different place
each time.
Yes, and so will drift. But you don't seem to know what genetic drift
is. It makes no sense to talk of it happening in an individual. It's
something that happens in populations. The frequency of a particular
allele in the population wanders up and down at random. Eventually,
and necessarily, it arrives at a frequency of either 0 or 1. Most new
mutations settle on 0. A few (a proportion of 1 divided by twice the
population size) get to 1. Most evolution is neutral, but most
evolution we find interesting -- the part that changes fish to land animals, for
example -- is not.

How about making evolution so clear that /everyone/ will know what it is?

I try. If you really want to understand, I can keep trying. But I suspect you don't, and would prefer to retain your strawmen. That's the purpose of strawmen: to make an opponent's argument easier to reject.

Then add to this that evolution does indeed seem to go against
"survival of the fittest". Why would a segment of a population of
fish even need to diverge if they are surviving in the water and
there is enough food? There would be no motive for the fish to move
onto land.
How can you know that? You seem to be saying that things are always
perfect just as they are. Think back a bit. There was lots of
competition for food in the sea, less on land. It would be highly
advantageous for an individual who could begin to exploit this new
resource.
The fish that already take
food from the land do so successfully already. Take dolphins for
instance. A dolphin is a highly intelligent creature. A dolphin will
swim onto shore after it's food and then use it's fins to work back
into the water. But in all this time dolphins have not evolved
larger fins to act as feet. If fish such as dolphins had the
propensity or even desire to come to land then the dolphin should be
showing clear observable signs of evolving into a land animal today.
We see no such evidence.
But there already are land animals. A dolphin can't be as good a land
animal as the land animals that are already there, so there is no
selective advantage in moving in that direction. Incumbency is a big
advantage, and has much influence. Then again, being able to breath
air seems to have certain advantages in the water, and land animals
have frequently taken to the water. Your dolphin clearly had
ancestors with legs, living on land. We have the anatomy, DNA, and
fossils to show that. Poor choice for you.

Reverse evolution?

[throws hands in the air]

What next? double reverse evolution?

It happens. You must understand that there is no grand plan of evolution. Whatever is useful right now, that's where the population goes. The past doesn't matter except as it's reflected in current conditions. There may indeed be double reverse evolution. There's a theory that snakes first evolved in the water, which would be a case of a land animal evolved from a sea animal evolved from a land animal evolved from a sea animal. The same may be true of turtles. Why not? What argument do you have that makes this implausible?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... The citizens around the world are expected to believe that the exact same random mutation is just suppose to target a segment of a particular population, ... Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist, and all evolution is multiple, directed mutations. ... Natural selection is suppose to target the same segment of fish for millions of years to slowly change that segment into land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural selection is a random force, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became ... Madman seems to think that natural selection doesn't exist, ... land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... exact same random mutation is just suppose to target a segment ... and all evolution is multiple, ... segment into land animals despite the fact that what may be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became ... and all evolution is multiple, ... land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution: Survival of the Miss-est
    ... Each miscopy or new code (random mutation) that became ... and all evolution is multiple, ... land animals despite the fact that what may be causing the natural ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading