Does natural selection require mutation?

[Saint_of_Me]

It seems like there is a wide range of opinions amongst evolutionists on this, and other mechanisms of evolution.

Some say random mutation is the driving force, some not at all, some say the gaps are real, some say the links are just missing.
some say DNA changes are driven by environment, some say not al all..

The only consensus among evolutionists seems to be; that however on earth it might work, it must be accidental!

Hmm..not so much, Guy.

I would guess that over 90% of all professional Biologists agree that the driving genetic mutations behind the Evolutionary Process are indeed totally random.

Your alternate idea that there is some sort of "guiding intelligence" or guiding hand being those genetic changes is called Teleological Evolution. Or, if those believers think God is pulling the strings, "Theistic Evolution."

Believers in either of those schools would be a vast minority in professional and post-graduate Biology arenas, however.

Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution is easily debunked however. The human body is by no means a perfect design, there are several key flaws, as there can be found in most species. This fact does not bode well for the existence of a Divine Designer. LOL.

 

[metis]

So was Piltdown man..

Gee, and I wonder how many people who claimed to be theistically inclined were as crooked as the day is long? If you are going to use Piltdown as a way to discredit evolution, then let's use corrupt ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams to condemn any and all religious beliefs. Do you want to start the very long list that could easily be compiled?


Added: Here I did the homework for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_leaders_convicted_of_crimes

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hmm..not so much, Guy.

I would guess that over 90% of all professional Biologists agree that the driving genetic mutations behind the Evolutionary Process are indeed totally random.

Your alternate idea that there is some sort of "guiding intelligence" or guiding hand being those genetic changes is called Teleological Evolution. Or, if those believers think God is pulling the strings, "Theistic Evolution."

Believers in either of those schools would be a vast minority in professional and post-graduate Biology arenas, however.

only 90%? pretty much 100% of physicists thought classical physics was adequate to describe physical reality.. and likewise, academic atheists claimed that this made God redundant, by leaving no room for those deeper mysterious unpredictable forces the ignorant masses believed in

Perhaps it was no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism?

Belief in fundamentalist evolution, that significant design improvements can be achieved by purely random mutations, is a minority belief. <20% in the US.
And fundamentalist creationism is also a minority- most of us are in the moderate middle ground somewhere..

Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution is easily debunked however. The human body is by no means a perfect design, there are several key flaws, as there can be found in most species. This fact does not bode well for the existence of a Divine Designer. LOL.

Many used to think that meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes were 'bad design' until we found them to be crucial to life on Earth as we know it.

There will always be mysteries the light of science has not yet illuminated- where we can point at 'bad design' - atheism of the gaps?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Natural selection is a form of evolution that naturally occurs (apart from things that are deliberately chosen, such as how a farmer drives selective selection by breeding choice livestock, or how sexual selection is driven by sexual characteristics), and is the theory that states an organism that is best suited to survive its environment will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and reproduce more often, thus there is a better chance of these beneficial qualities being passed on. But because evolution is driven, by its very nature, by mutations that are acquired by offspring and passed to future generations, mutations are needed or natural selection, or any form of evolution, wouldn't happen and we'd still be simple prokaryotes swimming in ocean thermal vents.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Natural selection is a form of evolution that naturally occurs (apart from things that are deliberately chosen, such as how a farmer drives selective selection by breeding choice livestock, or how sexual selection is driven by sexual characteristics), and is the theory that states an organism that is best suited to survive its environment will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce, and reproduce more often, thus there is a better chance of these beneficial qualities being passed on. But because evolution is driven, by its very nature, by mutations that are acquired by offspring and passed to future generations, mutations are needed or natural selection, or any form of evolution, wouldn't happen and we'd still be simple prokaryotes swimming in ocean thermal vents.

kinda lucky then!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution is easily debunked however. The human body is by no means a perfect design, there are several key flaws, as there can be found in most species. This fact does not bode well for the existence of a Divine Designer. LOL.

that would depend on how it was designed and whether that design was followed I guess.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

kinda lucky then!

yup, that's a lot of very lucky mutations!

 

[leibowde84]

I am looking to clarify our best scientific research in an open discussion.

I was under the impression that natural selection happens all the time. It is based on the fact that dna groupings (genes or allels) vary between parents and offspring because of different pairings of nucleotides.

However, this happens weither or not there is actually a mutation.

Natural selection is based on existing genes arrangements. There are a huge variety of hair color options already in place within the gene capacity of a species. But in order for new species development natural selection must be complimented by mutations.

In my understanding, a mutation is the adding or subtracting of coding.

This is what I have heard. I have not studied genetics in a post secondary level. I am looking to be educated. I am not posting a debate. To me a forum is a place to share ideas and discuss, not necessarily a place to debate.

Peace and looking forward to hearing what posts will come.

Just to clarify, Mutations occur during the process of DNA duplication when RNA splits and copies DNA strands. Mutations are when the RNA makes a mistake in the copying process.

 

[metis]

kinda lucky then!

Actually not in the sense that most mutations either negatively affect an organism or don't affect it either positively or negatively, and the negative mutations tend to get weeded out over time through natural selection. And what could be a seemingly meaningless mutation today could be a life-saver tomorrow if the environment changes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am looking to clarify our best scientific research in an open discussion.

I was under the impression that natural selection happens all the time. It is based on the fact that dna groupings (genes or allels) vary between parents and offspring because of different pairings of nucleotides.

However, this happens weither or not there is actually a mutation.

Natural selection is based on existing genes arrangements. There are a huge variety of hair color options already in place within the gene capacity of a species. But in order for new species development natural selection must be complimented by mutations.

In my understanding, a mutation is the adding or subtracting of coding.

This is what I have heard. I have not studied genetics in a post secondary level. I am looking to be educated. I am not posting a debate. To me a forum is a place to share ideas and discuss, not necessarily a place to debate.

Peace and looking forward to hearing what posts will come.

I think the official answer is that natural selection cannot happen without variation. Fitness is a relative term denoting the frequency of one allelle in respect to another, in the population. This means that a population may be dying out, accompanied by massive increases in fitness, untill the very last of the population is dead. Without variation, a population of clones, there is no fitness, as it is a relative term.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

pretty much 100% of physicists thought classical physics was adequate to describe physical reality

Not a single physicist did. That's because classical physics didn't become "classical" until it was realized that the approach to the development of theory in physics contained fundamental problems. It was believed around the end of the 19th century and early 20th century that physics was nearly complete, but everybody recognized that there existed empirical problems and far more found problematic the ontic character of the recently developed electromagnetism and the epistemic sacrifices of statistical mechanics. Indeed, a major impetus for Einstein's argument that even light was composed of discrete parts as well as his development of special and general relativity were motivated by a deep dissatisfaction with the nonlocal nature of Newtonian gravity and the ontic nonlocality of light waves. Maxwell himself was dissatisfied with his tremendous achievement unifying electricity and magnetic forces into classical electromagnetism.

Perhaps it was no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism?

It is not a coincidence because it is not true.

Belief in fundamentalist evolution

...is impossible. There's no such thing.

that significant design improvements can be achieved by purely random mutations

Improvements are value judgements. Incompatible, contrary adaptions can be ideal given different environments. Also, by the most objective measures the most superior living systems are the oldest: extremophiles and microorganisms are the most abundant, can survive in the greatest range of environments, and have remained in many cases basically unchanged since life began while most over 90% of species that ever were have gone extinct.

is a minority belief. <20% in the US.

Thank goodness truth isn't a matter of majority belief.

Many used to think that meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes were 'bad design'

No, they really didn't. First, because the emergence of astrology and geology quickly accompanied a radically critical position (even amongst biblical scholars and deists like Isaac Newton) that God designed anything more than initial conditions if god existed at all. Second, because "design" arguments of this type post-date our understanding of them necessary to conclude anything like this:

until we found them to be crucial to life on Earth as we know it.

There will always be mysteries the light of science has not yet illuminated- where we can point at 'bad design' - atheism of the gaps?

Only if we assume design, defeating any possible value of such characterizations of atheism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Only if we assume design, defeating any possible value of such characterizations of atheism.

I don't care who you are, you can't help but see design...it's everywhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't care who you are, you can't help but see design...it's everywhere.

That's because we are predisposed to inferring cause and design. It's the way people are inclined to think, whilst logic and formal reasoning are counterintuitive. Virtually nobody is able to correctly answer (without some schooling) questions like
A fair coin is tossed 20 times. Which of the following two outcomes is more likely?
1) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
2) HTTHTHHTTTHTTHTTHTTHH
(assume both are 20; I didn't carefully count either)

People see the first example and to them it looks clearly nonrandom. The coin must be biased or "designed" to yield heads. In reality, both sequences are exactly equally likely. But we don't tend to view results like those of the 2nd toss as a specific sequences of heads and tails. We abstract away from specificity and see a mixture of heads and tails. But when we see only heads, then we identify a clear pattern. This is fallacious reasoning and is wrong, but it is mostly useful for us (it's what allows us to abstract away from specific instantiations of concepts such as "trees" to be able to apply them to all trees even when no 2 look alike).

What we see everywhere is subject to deficiencies of our cognitive faculties when it comes to valid, logical reasoning.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's because we are predisposed to inferring cause and design. It's the way people are inclined to think, whilst logic and formal reasoning are counterintuitive. Virtually nobody is able to correctly answer (without some schooling) questions like
A fair coin is tossed 20 times. Which of the following two outcomes is more likely?
1) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
2) HTTHTHHTTTHTTHTTHTTHH
(assume both are 20; I didn't carefully count either)

People see the first example and to them it looks clearly nonrandom. The coin must be biased or "designed" to yield heads. In reality, both sequences are exactly equally likely. But we don't tend to view results like those of the 2nd toss as a specific sequences of heads and tails. We abstract away from specificity and see a mixture of heads and tails. But when we see only heads, then we identify a clear pattern. This is fallacious reasoning and is wrong, but it is mostly useful for us (it's what allows us to abstract away from specific instantiations of concepts such as "trees" to be able to apply them to all trees even when no 2 look alike).

What we see everywhere is subject to deficiencies of our cognitive faculties when it comes to valid, logical reasoning.

The first row of coin flips is less likely if you are only throwing that many coins. If you were to throw, lets say, a million, then that could be more likley than the other. It is therefore relative. But as your argument stands, the first is more likely and is due to the fact that we do not throw the coin the same way each time, so the dynamics are different and therefore the outcome will be different. I think you are being too clever in your reasoning and missing the simplicity of the argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The first row of coin flips is less likely if you are only throwing that many coins.

No, it isn't. Both are equally likely. That's because the probability of every flip is independent of any other. EVERY POSSIBLE SEQUENCE OF 20 FLIPS HAS EXACTLY THE SAME PROBABILITY.

But thank you for proving my point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's because we are predisposed to inferring cause and design. It's the way people are inclined to think, whilst logic and formal reasoning are counterintuitive. Virtually nobody is able to correctly answer (without some schooling) questions like
A fair coin is tossed 20 times. Which of the following two outcomes is more likely?
1) HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
2) HTTHTHHTTTHTTHTTHTTHH
(assume both are 20; I didn't carefully count either)

People see the first example and to them it looks clearly nonrandom. The coin must be biased or "designed" to yield heads. In reality, both sequences are exactly equally likely. But we don't tend to view results like those of the 2nd toss as a specific sequences of heads and tails. We abstract away from specificity and see a mixture of heads and tails. But when we see only heads, then we identify a clear pattern. This is fallacious reasoning and is wrong, but it is mostly useful for us (it's what allows us to abstract away from specific instantiations of concepts such as "trees" to be able to apply them to all trees even when no 2 look alike).

What we see everywhere is subject to deficiencies of our cognitive faculties when it comes to valid, logical reasoning.

This is a very common logical fallacy in atheist belief.

We are all aware of the odds against each random outcome being evenly low, but that's just one side of the probability equation, in reality we must consider both sides to arrive at the most likely explanation.

i.e. the odds of a gambler being dealt 3 royal flushes in a row, are over a hundred million trillion to one.

Yet of course being dealt even 100 royal flushes in a row, is no less likely than any particular sequence of 500 cards being dealt.

So by your 'logic', if you work in the fraud dept at the casino- and a guy is dealt nothing but royal flushes all night, you tell your boss that there is no reason to suspect cheating, and inform him of his fallaciously deficient cognitive faculties!

Obviously something is amiss in your 'superior' logic, and that's the other side of the equation- it's not just the probability of chance, but the probability of alternate explanations that must be taken into account

In this example, even if you can calculate that the odds of circumventing all the security measures are a hundred trillion to one, cheating is still a far more likely explanation than chance. Tempting as it may be to assume simple luck

Now apply this corrected logic to all you see around you- and that's why most people arrive at different conclusions than the ones you do.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

This is a very common logical fallacy in atheist belief.

We are all aware of the odds against each random outcome being evenly low, but that's just one side of the probability equation, in reality we must consider both sides to arrive at the most likely explanation.

i.e. the odds of a gambler being dealt 3 royal flushes in a row, are over a hundred million trillion to one.

Yet of course being dealt even 100 royal flushes in a row, is no less likely than any particular sequence of 500 cards being dealt.

So by your 'logic', if you work in the fraud dept at the casino- and a guy is dealt nothing but royal flushes all night, you tell your boss that there is no reason to suspect cheating, and inform him of his fallaciously deficient cognitive faculties!

Obviously something is amiss in your 'superior' logic, and that's the other side of the equation- it's not just the probability of chance, but the probability of alternate explanations that must be taken into account

In this example, even if you can calculate that the odds of circumventing all the security measures are a hundred trillion to one, cheating is still a far more likely explanation than chance. Tempting as it may be to assume simple luck

Now apply this corrected logic to all you see around you- and that's why most people arrive at different conclusions than the ones you do.

Actually that post you replied to was correct. The homo sapien mind IS conditioned--actually evolved--to seek patterns and causes, even when there are none. I will gladly expand on this if you like, and offer you as many links form neurologists and psychiatrists and Anthropologists ans you wish. My field of expertise is in Cosmology, but I am fairly-well educated in Evolution as well. So..let me know.

(BTW: the very reason people like you believe in gods is due to this same dynamic, the evolution of the mind. We have found the part of the brain that provides religious experience. We can, and have, stimulated "God Experiences" and "Divine Revelations" in your brain with electric impulses.)

Back to your claims about the long odds of life beginning here on Earth. Again, you are dead wrong. Sorry to be a nit-picker, but you're in my territory now. LOL

Your casino example is a non sequitur. Has nothing to do with odds of abio-genesis occurring some 3 BYA in the Hot Soup here on Earth.

Why?

Because you have nothing to compare us to. With normal odds-making, like in your casino, there is a historicity involved. In which we can extrapolate odds from. We also have tangible entities to figure into the equations--like the 52 cards in a deck. And then some simple math equations involving multiplication and division render us odds.

You people of the "anthropic principle" persuasion have no such luxury. As you have no past planets to compare us to. LOL If you, had, say, one million planets that had the same chemicals in their primordial ooze, and same atmospheric conditions ad Earth 3 BYA, and only one of those planets sprouted life, then yeah, you could claim one in a million odds for life here.

But we don't have that. For all we know we are only special because it too so LONG for life to begin! LOL. There could be--probably ARE!--millions of other planets that had the same conditions where it took life only a fraction of the time to begin.

Hope this helps.

http://asktheatheist.com/?p=375

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually that post you replied to was correct. The homo sapien mind IS conditioned--actually evolved--to seek patterns and causes, even when there are none. I will gladly expand on this if you like, and offer you as many links form neurologists and psychiatrists and Anthropologists ans you wish. My field of expertise is in Cosmology, but I am fairly-well educated in Evolution as well. So..let me know.

(BTW: the very reason people like you believe in gods is due to this same dynamic, the evolution of the mind. We have found the part of the brain that provides religious experience. We can, and have, stimulated "God Experiences" and "Divine Revelations" in your brain with electric impulses.)

Back to your claims about the long odds of life beginning here on Earth. Again, you are dead wrong. Sorry to be a nit-picker, but you're in my territory now. LOL

Your casino example is a non sequitur. Has nothing to do with odds of abio-genesis occurring some 3 BYA in the Hot Soup here on Earth.

Why?

Because you have nothing to compare us to. With normal odds-making, like in your casino, there is a historicity involved. In which we can extrapolate odds from. We also have tangible entities to figure into the equations--like the 52 cards in a deck. And then some simple math equations involving multiplication and division render us odds.

You people of the "anthropic principle" persuasion have no such luxury. As you have no past planets to compare us to. LOL If you, had, say, one million planets that had the same chemicals in their primordial ooze, and same atmospheric conditions ad Earth 3 BYA, and only one of those planets sprouted life, then yeah, you could claim one in a million odds for life here.

But we don't have that. For all we know we are only special because it too so LONG for life to begin! LOL. There could be--probably ARE!--millions of other planets that had the same conditions where it took life only a fraction of the time to begin.

Hope this helps.

http://asktheatheist.com/?p=375

Yes, the casino analogy is inaccurate, because it grants you a tangible known mechanism (as you concede), with a 100% proven capability to randomly produce the result in question.

That is something we simply don't have for abiogenesis or spontaneous universe creation

It also presents a situation where an intelligent agent is actively guarded against- with 100 trillion to one odds in this case- we know of no such anti-intelligence security applying in nature

So compared with abiogenesis, intelligence, or creation of the universe, the casino analogy is heavily biased towards allowing chance to provide the result i.e. atheism, yet we would both conclude ID in this example.

The difference re. the existence of life/ the universe, is preference for one particular answer over another, take that bias out of the equation, neither case favors chance

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Yes, the casino analogy is inaccurate, because it grants you a tangible known mechanism (as you concede), with a 100% proven capability to randomly produce the result in question.

That is something we simply don't have for abiogenesis or spontaneous universe creation

It also presents a situation where an intelligent agent is actively guarded against- with 100 trillion to one odds in this case- we know of no such anti-intelligence security applying in nature

So compared with abiogenesis, intelligence, or creation of the universe, the casino analogy is heavily biased towards allowing chance to provide the result i.e. atheism, yet we would both conclude ID in this example.

The difference re. the existence of life/ the universe, is preference for one particular answer over another, take that bias out of the equation, neither case favors chance

See..this is where it is problematical in arguing with you IDers. When you don't have too good of a grasp on the nuances and mechanics of Cosmology/. As it seems you indeed do not. No offense.

You claimed "spontaneous Universal Creation." It trust you are referring to the Big Bang?

First, are you sure it was spontaneous? LOL. There are different ideas of how and why it happened. One of them postulates the most recent one that occurred some 13.7 BYA was simply the most recent in a long chain of them. Think bubbles on the surface of a pot of boiling water. "Bang...expand....stasis..contract...return to infinitesimal point of singularity...and then Bang...expand....stasis...contract......"

Ad infinitum.

Also, if TIME began with the Big Bang, which it did, BTW, since it is proven to be a part of something called the Space-Time Continuum, then there is no spontaneity, since that word implies something occurring instantly, with no a fore-thought.

But if TIME was not present before, none of this is required. Spontaneity can only occur as a point on a linear line. In other words, it needs a "time line." But since TIME was not present before the BB, your word does not fit.

Also, your whole idea of an intelligent designer, besides being devoid of ANY proof, does not really answer any questions, does it? We just don't need it. LOL. In fact, I think it poses more questions, i.e. "who created the Designer?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

See..this is where it is problematical in arguing with you IDers. When you don't have too good of a grasp on the nuances and mechanics of Cosmology/. As it seems you indeed do not. No offense.

none taken! and for the record, you seem like a perfectly intelligent rational person to me with a pretty good grasp of the subject. A different perspective and conclusion perhaps, that's fine with me

You claimed "spontaneous Universal Creation." It trust you are referring to the Big Bang?

Not at all, the 'big bang' was a pejorative term Hoyle coined for the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom. He called it 'religious pseudo science' for the overt implications of a specific creation event.

The overwhelming majority of atheist academics like Hoyle, preferred static/ eternal models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

First, are you sure it was spontaneous? LOL. There are different ideas of how and why it happened. One of them postulates the most recent one that occurred some 13.7 BYA was simply the most recent in a long chain of them. Think bubbles on the surface of a pot of boiling water. "Bang...expand....stasis..contract...return to infinitesimal point of singularity...and then Bang...expand....stasis...contract......"

Right, after the BB was finally accepted, atheism switched to cyclical models as you describe (e.g. big crunch). this was debunked by supernova measurements denoting infinite expansion.

Hawking then abandoned this for multiverses, inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation

atheism of the gaps some might call it..

Also, if TIME began with the Big Bang, which it did, BTW, since it is proven to be a part of something called the Space-Time Continuum, then there is no spontaneity, since that word implies something occurring instantly, with no a fore-thought.

Again I'm am using 'spontaneous' to mean 'unintended/ automated' in this case. There are obviously semantic debates to get lost in here, but that term came from an atheist on this forum as his preferred term for it.- since he didn't like 'bizarre fluke' for some reason

But we agree here, the creator, intelligent or not, by definition transcends time as we know it, that being a product of, not an ingredient of our universe yes?
Though Hawking coined 'imaginary time' to allow cause and effect in a construct of time outside of ours. And I'd agree with him that we cannot assume our time is the only possible one.

Also, your whole idea of an intelligent designer, besides being devoid of ANY proof, does not really answer any questions, does it? We just don't need it. LOL. In fact, I think it poses more questions, i.e. "who created the Designer?"

I acknowledge faith in my belief, I do not claim proof.
None of us have proof, we all believe in something

"Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself"

But a very good question! as is 'what created the spontaneous, naturalistic, automated universe making machine' or whatever you prefer to call it

So that apparent paradox is a wash, and also a moot point, since... here we are! either way there must be a solution right?


But i think what is not even, as we started debating, is the capacity of creative intelligence v chance to create everything you see around you.