Joined: Oct. 2009
All quotes are him... you know...
|Kevin you are an ignorant fuck if you don't know the three inputs to natural selection.|
Only if they are actually 'inputs'. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're just making stuff up.
For example: A search on "inputs to natural selection" results in 4 hits. Three of these are forums, the 4th is a comment on a blog that states specifically "The randomness of the inputs to natural selection is kind of irrelevant, right? Natural selection tames that randomness by selecting only those random entries that give an advantage."
So, I don't think I'm the ignorant one. I think you are making shit up.
1- Variation- entirely by chance
I can agree with this... up to a point. There's some variation that will never work in an organism and some (maybe even most) variation does not influence phenotype or survivability at all.
2- Fecundity- can't tell until after the fact
This isn't an input to natural selection. This is a fact that encourages competition and the individual that is most competitive wins.
3- Heredity- it isn't guarnteed that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed down.
This isn't an input either.
Here, let me help. Inputs are things which are used to determine an outcome. For example f(x) = X+3. X is an input. It's something that directly affects the output of a system.
So, let's consider natural selection. What are things that directly affect natural selection?
1) An individuals genes. While the genes themselves may be (slightly) randomized, the vast majority of the genes are not random. In fact, the vast majority of the genes have a long, stable history of doing a particular job very well.
2) The environment. Again, while parts are (slightly) random, the vast majority of the environment is the same by day. This is difficult, so I'll type slowly. Today is August 15th here in Central Texas (I don't know what date it is on your world). That's high summer here. Weather, for example, is not random. The temperature tomorrow will not be 143F or 32F or -34F or even 64F. The vast majority of possible temperatures are not available to tomorrow's weather. Is the weather random... yes, but only within a very, very narrow range (just like the genes mentioned above). Here in central Texas, there is zero chance of a volcano appearing tonight. There is zero chance of a tsunami. There is zero chance of an avalanche or glacier. I could go on, but you get the point.
That's it for the inputs of natural selection. A case could be made for other organisms, food, etc, but I consider all that 'the environment'.
So, while random things do happen, the majority of things that would wildly affect natural selection have a very, very narrow range of possibilities. While the temperature tomorrow may very well be random (which I would argue against and you aren't smart enough to even try and convince me otherwise), it's only going to be random between 97F and 101F and no clouds vs. 10% clouds (to be precise, this would be between noon and 3PM).
Does it begin to click yet? no? I'm not surprised.
But anyways you are too stupid to understand taht the theory of evolution expects an organism- a human-like organism, with 47 chromosomes.
Are we back on this. Joe, what the normal chromosome number of living things? Here's another Wiki page to help you /List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Do you notice anything interesting about the list Joe? Perhaps that all the numbers are even? It's called the diploid number for a reason Joe. TWO!!! PAIRS joe, chromosomes are organized into PAIRS!!!
Organisms with odd numbers of chromosomes have massive genetic problems Joe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality
We need to get that out of the way before we can even begin to discuss anything else.
Done and done... I did that months ago, but you're too lazy to go look up what I told you to.
|Kevin- whatever is "good enough" gets through the filter of natural selection. It isn't just what works the best, whuich can be any number of things any way.|
Holy Cow. Joe actually got it...
Not like a designer at all is it Joe? I mean the only designer we're aware of doesn't make do with good enough, they always try to make the best possible product.
You cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time and you cannot predict what mutation will occur at any point in time.
Nope, can't predict mutations. And nope, can't predict what will be selected for.
For example, the mutation that occurred a couple hundred yeas ago that conferred HIV immunity... which wasn't even a disease until the 1950s. You know, evolution.
Then there is cooperation and behaviour- behaviour is easier to change in order to adapt then to wait around for some possibly beneficial genetic change.
IOW natural selection isn't as simple as you make it out to be. OTOH you appear to be very simple...
Yes Joe, it's very complex. And it doesn't appear that you know very much about it.
But, what, pray tell is the point of all this?
The point is you saying that natural selection is random. But like the quote that I pasted at the beginning of this takedown, natural selection, over time reduce the randomness.
Much like dice, Joe. Ever play craps? Throw 2d6 and what are the odds of getting a 7? Is that random?
But over time, we can still make predictions about the likelihood of rolling a 7. Even after 10 rolls or a hundred, we don't have a very good picture of the pattern. But after several hundred thousand rolls, you'll begin to see a pattern emerge... one in which there is a statistical likelihood of rolling a 7.
One organism's survival may be random. Maybe he just had a bad day or got lucky. But over time and millions of individuals, the randomness tends to go away and you're left with traits that increase the survivability of the organism.
So what's your argument Joe? Because evolution is random, it can never produce complex things? You've just proven yourself wrong Joe.
This discussion of randomness has shown exactly what evolution predicts. Mutations are random, but only certain mutations survive and thrive in a population.. that is mutations that are beneficial. The environment may have random effects, but again... over time, the most effective organisms will survive and reproduce. Those offspring will have minor variations (genetically speaking) and may have improved or decreased survivability. It's not totally random Joe. Just within a very narrow range.
What textbooks? Please be specific
Nice try Joe. It's call 'a joke'... here's the Wikipedia page for you Joke
So, you really don't understand that the phase of the material is directly dependent on it's energy?
Technically, if you could measure the motion of (and pressure on) a single molecule of water, you could determine if that molecule was in the solid phase, liquid phase, or gaseous phase. I guess you could determine plasma too, but only from the fact that there's no water molecule left.
You really, seriously, need to understand the things you're talking about.
BTW: While we're talking about stuff... what if I copied your description of aardvark (which, in case you didn't know, is NOT an aardvark) into French, would there be more or less CSI?
I'm sorry Joe, but the annuls of your stupidity, calculating the CSI of an animal by using the dictionary definition of that animal has got to be in the top two.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.