Natural selection is proven wrong

[gamila]

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.

i dont have one

You can quote mine all you like, it doesn't change that fact.

fact is as this site notes

note it says heritable traits

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

[GaryGaulin]

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.

i dont have one

Thanks Gamila for being so honest!

I'm now wondering what you think of this explanation. With any definition being difficult to word I expect you might find something wrong with it too but your honest opinion of it would be helpful.

Speciation

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together. Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

In some cases speciation happens very slowly by taking small learning steps, one gene or epigentic switching change at a time. In other cases it is immediate, with no transitional fossils possible.

How long it would take an isolated genome to slowly speciate depends on its learning rate (how fast it gains or changes new information/genes). Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change. Asexual reproducers such as E. coli produce clones of itself which are identical to the parent. Fast responses to environment is then from exchanging plasmids but these are separate transient genomes, not the primary genome that accomplishes cell growth and reproduction.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

[gamila]

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together. Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together.

1) so is the new population the same as or different to the antecendant population

2} if the populations can still breed fertile offspring what makes them different species

Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart..

can the different populations have fertile offspring
if yes then what makes them different species
or
if they cant what makes your definition different from those who say different species cant breed fertile of spring

from the look of your definition you are saying two things
1_ different species can breed
2 the same species can breed

we are left wondering just what a species is

[robsabba]

You can quote mine all you like, it doesn't change that fact.

fact is as this site notes

note it says heritable traits

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit. Quantitative traits, (under multiple gene control, like height in humans) can be put under selective pressure, just as qualitative traits that are under the control of a single gene.

Let's look at an example of how this works. I told you already about the fruit fly experiment, where after a number of generations, two populations were selected for that fell outside the original population's range for bristle hair number. This is a quanitative trait, determined by multiple genes. Another example which is from a natural situation is beak size in birds. In particular, Darwin's finches in the Galapagos islands. During a period of drought, small-seed plants began to dominate the flora and there was selective pressure for reduced beak size in the finches living there who depended on those seeds. As a result, the finches evolved to have smaller beaks. Keep in mind, that beak size is represented by a range of sizes. The result of evolution was that that range was shifted to the smaller end.

Another example would be the peppered moths famous in England. Most were white because they could blend in with the lichens growing on the trees which camoflauged them from hunting birds. However, there were always a small number of dark colored moths. These moths were kept down in number due to the fact they were easier to hunt. With industrialization, the lichens died on the trees and smut covered the trees making them dark. Now, the dark colored moths had the advantage over the white ones, and the populations evolved to be mostly black. This inheritance is more stright foward, under the control of one or two genes. Thus, you are either white or black, but not inbetween (unlike beak size).

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation. It normally takes multiple such events to make a population different enough from the mother population to stop mating with that mother population. The creation of a population that either cannot or will not bred with the original is the definition of speciation in species that unergo sexual reproduction. How can such changes result in reproductive isolation as I just defined it? One interesting example is changes in bird beak size brought on by changes in diet. In songbirds, the size of the beak affects the song that the birds sing. It has been documented that changes in beak size brought on by changes in diet can alter the song that birds sing to find mates. This can then result in the reproductive isolation of a population from its original population. Keep in mind this type of change is gradual, and that populations evolve, not indiviuals. That is just one example.

[robsabba]

can the different populations have fertile offspring
if yes then what makes them different species
or
if they cant what makes your definition different from those who say different species cant breed fertile of spring

from the look of your definition you are saying two things
1_ different species can breed
2 the same species can breed

we are left wondering just what a species is

Let's look at lions and tigers. Lions and tigers do not interbred in nature, yet can be made to under artificial (human controlled) conditions. Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species. This does leave us with a question, however. If they do not have a common ancestor, why are they able to interbred under artificial situations?

[gamila]

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit

as i said

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species.

self contradiction
you say they are different species but they can breed which means they are the same species
just look at deans example of the bactrian and dromardy camels
your qualification of artifical is just sophism
fact is speciation shows ns is wrong

to quote

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[robsabba]

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit

as i said

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species.

self contradiction
you say they are different species but they can breed which means they are the same species
just look at deans example of the bactrian and dromardy camels
your qualification of artifical is just sophism
fact is speciation shows ns is wrong

There is no contradiction. I gave you the definition as it is actually used in the real world. You did not answer my question, which is why these different animals are able to interbred if they do not have a common ancestor. How about answering my question now?

to quote

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

Now you are just repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. I think you are just wasting my time. Hopefully a few lurkers got something out of this, at least..

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

[gamila]

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

ignoring nothing



your talk of moths and your blood example as has been pointed out shows ns is wrong

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

you said

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation.

but we are talking about speciation
and as such speciation shows ns is wrong
you have even said

Yes, "something evolved from what it was not,

thus

. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

fact is ns is about the passing on of already present traits
speciation show ns is wrong

ns is

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

as i have already said

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

you say

There is no contradiction.

i gave you the bactrian and dromadry camel example

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

your qualification of artifical is just sophism .

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

perhaps you might like to reply to this thread
the colin leslie dean species paradox
about15986.html

[robsabba]

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

ignoring nothing

I wrote three paragraphs, and you just repeated your previous posts.

your talk of moths and your blood example as has been pointed out shows ns is wrong

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

Please listen. One more time. Populations Evolve Not Individuals. Evolution is a Change in Gene Frequency In A Population, not an individual and its offspring alone.

you said

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation.

but we are talking about speciation
and as such speciation shows ns is wrong
you have even said

Yes, "something evolved from what it was not,

thus

. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

I gave you an example of a reproductive isolation mechanism from the real world-- songbirds-- and you ignored it.

fact is ns is about the passing on of already present traits
speciation show ns is wrong

ns is

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

as i have already said

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

See above

you say

There is no contradiction.

i gave you the bactrian and dromadry camel example

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

your qualification of artifical is just sophism .

No. The difference betweeen Artifical and Natural is real. Look them up in a dictionary.

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

perhaps you might like to reply to this thread
the colin leslie dean species paradox
about15986.htm

Why would I reply to another thread where you are repeating yourself over and over and not paying attention to anyone's responses?

[gamila]

No. The difference betweeen Artifical and Natural is real. Look them up in a dictionary.

the fact is that the off spring from the bactrian and dromardy camels is real -they did mate in a natural setting

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

fact is populations are made up of individuals
and
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

you say

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

so lets try this tack- i am not happy with it
if the new species population has traits that are not present in its parent population then this shows ns is wrong as ns is about the transmission of already present triats
In other words the new species population has new triats not seen before so where did they come from, they could not have come from the parent population as they are new triats and thus not present in the parent population
now if they did not come from the parent population they could not have happened due to natural selection as ns is about the parent population passing on already present ie not new triats

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

no idea
but
the problem may not be with the animals but be with the classificatory system used
which is based on an essentialism

[robsabba]

[you say

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

so lets try this tack- i am not happy with it
if the new species population has traits that are not present in its parent population then this shows ns is wrong as ns is about the transmission of already present triats
In other words the new species population has new triats not seen before so where did they come from, they could not have come from the parent population as they are new triats and thus not present in the parent population
now if they did not come from the parent population they could not have happened due to natural selection as ns is about the parent population passing on already present ie not new triats

Let's look at how Darwin defined Natural Selection (paraphrasing)
1. There is variation among indiviuals in a popualtion.
2. That variation is inheritable
3. More offspring are produced than can survive long enough to reproduce.
4. Those indivduals that are better adapted to their environment with preferentially survive to reproduce and pass their traits on.

Notice anything? The explanation for (1) variation, is not mentioned. This is because Natural Selection does not explain where the variation it acts on comes from. This is where genetics comes in. One source is assortive mating, and another is mutation.

Now, what happens during evolution, is there is a shift in the frequency of genes in a population (not individuals!). Individuals which survive to reproduce will pass on their genetic material to offspring, but the genetics of the population is what changes. In the peppered moth example, black moths survived to reproduce which in turn shifted the population from mostly white to mostly black. With the finch example, those birds with smaller beaks survived to reproduce which in turn shifted the population to a ditribution of beak sizes which were smaller. Over many generations, this can potentially shift the population to a size distribution outside the original range! If two populations undergo a different line of evolutionary change long enough, they will no longer be able (or willing) to interbred. Then they are considered different species. Normally, this requires a series of evolutionary changes over time, not just one or two. Often a specific change in reproduction or mating behavior will occur to result in what is called an isolating mechanism. The songbird example I gave is a case in point.

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

no idea
but
the problem may not be with the animals but be with the classificatory system used
which is based on an essentialism

You mentioned bactrian and dromardry camels. Do they look different? Yes. What possible explanation is there for their ability to interbred? There is only one. They have a Common Ancestor. Why do they look different now? Evolution. Natural Selection is one mechanism of evolution, and others (such as genetic drift) could also be part of that mechanism for evolutionary change from their common ancestor.

[gamila]

Let's look at how Darwin defined Natural Selection (paraphrasing)

the definition of ns is very clear
it is very clear from this site

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

and as has been pointed out

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is

What possible explanation is there for their ability to interbred?

fact is they do interbreed which should mean they are the same speciies
but
they are not the same species
thus a contradiction