The myth of 1%

[Bthoth]

This isn't what you said.

That is the definition of select. nothing to debate.

It is a straw man.

The straw is what you are standing on

It is also support for selection of biological change by the environment.

The life is changing with intent to survive (continue living). Nature is not selecting.
Consider migrations, the lives move. Nature does not tell them to.

I don't agree with and accept claims that you understand biology.

Not the topic, that is a straw man claim.

There is no evidence of intent for the genetic changes that take place leading to the evolution of populations.

now your moving the goal post. Nature does not make the genes change, the life changes its genes to enable the changes.

You're lost in your temper and not observing what is changing and evolving.

Semantics and logical fallacies have failed and continue fail to be that evidence.

Exactly, the fallacy is that nature is 'selecting' what survives. That's the joke. Not that evolution is wrong but the comprehension that you are using is the joke.

I don't have time to give you a university-level education on a subject you seem intent on being incorrect about from the bottom up.

Again, straw man. You keep changing your argument and method because you choose NOT to just be fair.

What is correct, is 'LIFE: intends to continue'. That is what drives evolution. The lives of nature evolve to survive!

nature is not selecting anything! I am beginning to think that the reason Darwin used the term is to allow for the religious flavors to accept an oversight. I find that as stupid as a god giving commandments.

Be fair. No need to argue or try to condemn me as incapable or ignorant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is the definition of select. nothing to debate.



The straw is what you are standing on

The life is changing with intent to survive (continue living). Nature is not selecting.
Consider migrations, the lives move. Nature does not tell them to.

Not the topic, that is a straw man claim.

now your moving the goal post. Nature does not make the genes change, the life changes its genes to enable the changes.

You're lost in your temper and not observing what is changing and evolving.

Exactly, the fallacy is that nature is 'selecting' what survives. That's the joke. Not that evolution is wrong but the comprehension that you are using is the joke.

Again, straw man. You keep changing your argument and method because you choose NOT to just be fair.

What is correct, is 'LIFE: intends to continue'. That is what drives evolution. The lives of nature evolve to survive!

nature is not selecting anything! I am beginning to think that the reason Darwin used the term is to allow for the religious flavors to accept an oversight. I find that as stupid as a god giving commandments.

Be fair. No need to argue or try to condemn me as incapable or ignorant.

So nothing to really to support your claims. Just attack, deny or belittle any observation I have noted and point I have made.

Thanks for letting me know the value of continuing this.

 

[Bthoth]

We're questioning nature's "intention" to survive.

No one is questioning nature. The debate is the description.

Nature is not selecting which lives survive. The living are evolving based on intent to survive.

Organisms aren't planning to survive,

Planning is the wrong word and why it's ridiculous, but the intent to survive is what all living processes are doing.
A seed is created for the new generation to survive. Hence the intent to put all of that energy to make seeds.

Trees grow to the sunlight (up) for the same pursuit, to survive.

they either do or don't, depending on luck and fitness.

Correct, the lives will either adjust or fail. What makes them evolve, the intent to survive.

No thought process is required for evolution But it does take thought to evolve WITH knowledge.

Why the gang up? So what if I have a unique perspective. All knowledge evolves because of having new perspective and descriptive capabilities.

Evolution is true, but nature is not selecting what survives. The lives are changing to survive. That intent to survive is universal for living processes.

 

[Bthoth]

So nothing to really to support your claims.

All of nature supports what i am writing.

Just attack, deny or belittle any observation I have noted and point I have made.

Yes, you are defending old descriptive wording and past frame work, You have belittled me, for writing different terminology.

Why? Because i am non compliant?

Thanks for letting me know the value of continuing this.

I know, until others accept the scope of comprehending that living systems intend to survive, you choose not to.

I get it. Again, a different perspective but i am not contesting that evolution does not happen. I just comprehend that the living system is changing with the environment not that nature is selecting the change to survive.

That's where the problem is with the debate. And I am just a single that is well versed as well too honest to just roll over because you do not like it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The environment is not the weather. It is the sum total of all that biotic, abiotic, internal and external interactions involving living things. The environment varies as well as the features of those living things.

Living things do appear to have a survival instinct, but there is no evidence that it is the intent of living things that drives change in the allele frequency over time.

Natural selection is a metaphor for the impact of the environment and its interaction with living things where some of those living things have genotypes randomly optimized to provide an increased propensity of reproductive success and sustain those genotypes in the population and into the future.

While beliefs vary and include many claims, there is nothing evidenced to be willfully influencing the natural process.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of nature supports what i am writing.

Yes, you are defending old descriptive wording and past frame work, You have belittled me, for writing different terminology.

Why? Because i am non compliant?

I know, until others accept the scope of comprehending that living systems intend to survive, you choose not to.

I get it. Again, a different perspective but i am not contesting that evolution does not happen. I just comprehend that the living system is changing with the environment not that nature is selecting the change to survive.

That's where the problem is with the debate. And I am just a single that is well versed as well too honest to just roll over because you do not like it.

Good for you.

 

[Bthoth]

The environment is not the weather.

Yes weather is environmental.

It is the sum total of all that biotic, abiotic, internal and external interactions involving living things. The environment varies as well as the features of those living things.

Sure, underwater is environment, just as weather is environment. Are you just that mad?

Living things do appear to have a survival instinct,

Exactly. It is built in.

but there is no evidence that it is the intent of living things that drives change in the allele frequency over time.

Again, you are using additional terms, to try and uproot but you know perfectly well "Living things do appear to have a survival instinct, ' an intent.

Natural selection is a metaphor for the impact of the environment

OK... metaphor. Just as the 'intent to survive' can be the same. But intent of the life to survive (continue living) is far closer than nature 'selecting'.

and its interaction with living things where some of those living things have genotypes randomly

Random is the joke. The living systems are not randomly surviving, they are trying to survive and what drives EVOLUTION. The species will either change (evolve to the environmental conditions or go extinct) It's exactly how I feel about knowledge. The change will occur or not going to survive.

optimized to provide an increased propensity of reproductive success and sustain those genotypes in the population and into the future.

Yes, they optimize what they have, but nothing random about it.

While beliefs vary and include many claims, there is nothing evidenced to be willfully influencing this process.

Yes there is, the life, intends to continue living. Even if they have to eat their own children.

Almost like you here, using every means possible to try and discredit what you know is true; the lives do intend to continue living (survive).

 

[Valjean]

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that intent causes genetic changes and speciation.

You haven't provided anything scientific or rational that I'm aware of. I don't think it is just me.

When you get that evidence and reasoned explanation, get back with me.

It's old-fashioned Lamarckism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes weather is environmental.

Sure, underwater is environment, just as weather is environment. Are you just that mad?

Exactly. It is built in.

Again, you are using additional terms, to try and uproot but you know perfectly well "Living things do appear to have a survival instinct, ' an intent.

OK... metaphor. Just as the 'intent to survive' can be the same. But intent of the life to survive (continue living) is far closer than nature 'selecting'.

Random is the joke. The living systems are not randomly surviving, they are trying to survive and what drives EVOLUTION.

Yes, they optimize what they have, but nothing random about it.

Yes there is, the life, intends to continue living. Even if they have to eat their own children.

Almost like you here, using every means possible to try and discredit what you know is true; the lives do intend to continue living (survive).

Are you still here?

I didn't say weather wasn't part of the environment. Try reading what I write.

Thanks for all the examples of the environment.

Why are you claiming I'm mad. Do you feel you have done something that would make me mad? You haven't. I feel something, but it isn't anger or frustration. I feel sad as I read what you post.

No one has claimed that a survival instinct or any instinct isn't built in. Where's that evidence that instinct is intent? Haven't seen it yet.

Intent to survive isn't a metaphor for any recognized or revealed mechanism of evolution. No one has provided evidence or reason that it is.

There's that reading comprehension issue again. I didn't say that living systems are randomly surviving.

There's been no evidence that intent is driving evolution and none has been offered. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Selection is non-random. Mutations are random. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your willful view of things.

Life continues to live by destroying life. How profound and confusing. I believe this may be some of that deepity that I've heard so much about.

I haven't discredited my education, experience and knowledge of biology. Neither have you. I'm not sure what it is you think you are doing but I know what you haven't done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's old-fashioned Lamarckism.

It seems like another of those syncretic positions that is incorporating personal conclusions with bits of religion and poorly understood pieces of biology cobbled together with poor and fallacious reasoning to come up with something that makes no sense and means even less.

I can see how Lamarck is being woven into this. It even occurred to me mention epigenetic mechanisms, but those do not arise by intent either.

 

[exchemist]

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that intent causes genetic changes and speciation.

You haven't provided anything scientific or rational that I'm aware of. I don't think it is just me.

When you get that evidence and reasoned explanation, get back with me.

No it certainly is not just you.

 

[Valjean]

No one is questioning nature. The debate is the description.

Nature is not selecting which lives survive. The living are evolving based on intent to survive.

How does that work?
The environment (nature) produces ("selects") a higher percentage of offspring with the features best "fit" for the immediate environment

Planning is the wrong word and why it's ridiculous, but the intent to survive is what all living processes are doing.

What is the mechanism involved in this translation of intent into phenotype?

A seed is created for the new generation to survive. Hence the intent to put all of that energy to make seeds.

Trees grow to the sunlight (up) for the same pursuit, to survive.

Correct, the lives will either adjust or fail. What makes them evolve, the intent to survive.

What mechanism would enable this? You're describing function and chemical mechanism, not conscious intent.

No thought process is required for evolution But it does take thought to evolve WITH knowledge.

Huh?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No it certainly is not just you.

It just seems like another version of a very old, pointless game. It would be more efficient just to state the denial of science and get it over with.

 

[Bthoth]

No one has claimed that a survival instinct or any instinct isn't built in. Where's that evidence that instinct is intent? Haven't seen it yet.

The intent of life to continue, is what I compared to instinct when I first posted in this mess.

Intent to survive isn't a metaphor for any recognized or revealed mechanism of evolution.

AS usual, you need someone else to tell you and why you need something new to be recognized by others before you even consider the premise

No one has provided evidence or reason that it is.

Life is the evidence. Instinct is a premise debated as being the cause of the intent.

There's that reading comprehension issue again. I didn't say that living systems are randomly surviving.

Random is the most common term used for evolving changes. I liken it to the big E's idea of 'god dont play dice'

There's been no evidence that intent is driving evolution and none has been offered. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Do you observe nature and the natural evidence as relevant?

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions​

• T. Ryan Gregory

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 2, pages156–175 (2009)

i did not finish the paper to find the exact words but dang it was leaning towards my scope far more than you knew.

Then i found this "Every living organism wants to survive and be in existence."

My line is: Life: intends to continue.

Selection is non-random. Mutations are random. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your willful view of things.

According to de Vries' mutation theory, living organisms can develop changes to their genes that greatly alter the organism. These changes are passed down to the next generation, and lead to the development of new species. Once a new species has evolved, it becomes fixed and stops changing

Life continues to live by destroying life. How profound and confusing. I believe this may be some of that deepity that I've heard so much about.

Now that is just about as goofy vegan.

I haven't discredited my education, experience and knowledge of biology. Neither have you. I'm not sure what it is you think you are doing but I know what you haven't done.

I haven't written a quality paper with peer review citations to show you. I know but you have helped me address a couple new angles to overcome.

So far, you have not done anything but remind me why I stepped away from the 'community'.

It's old-fashioned Lamarckism.

Thanks for the cool term.

 

[Bthoth]

How does that work?
The environment (nature) produces ("selects") a higher percentage of offspring with the features best "fit" for the immediate environment

The life is doing it, not 'nature'. Life lives within nature. Nature is the universe, the environment. Life evolves within a given environment.

Nature is not selecting which life continues to survive. The living, evolve, chance and develop what enables it to survive.

I am on the opposite side to this groups perspective of what drives evolution.

What is the mechanism involved in this translation of intent into phenotype?

The living process. If I mention life: abuses entropy, i will be lambasted again.

What mechanism would enable this? You're describing function and chemical mechanism, not conscious intent.

Huh?

I know that. Just as selection is a thought process but did you ever argue that?

The living process is not based on the process of entropy. It's opposite of that.

 

[Bthoth]

It just seems like another version of a very old, pointless game. It would be more efficient just to state the denial of science and get it over with.

Science evolves. The scientists evolve with knowledge or end up obsolete.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The intent of life to continue, is what I compared to instinct when I first posted in this mess.

AS usual, you need someone else to tell you and why you need something new to be recognized by others before you even consider the premise

Life is the evidence. Instinct is a premise debated as being the cause of the intent.

Random is the most common term used for evolving changes. I liken it to the big E's idea of 'god dont play dice'

Do you observe nature and the natural evidence as relevant?

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions​

• T. Ryan Gregory

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 2, pages156–175 (2009)

i did not finish the paper to find the exact words but dang it was leaning towards my scope far more than you knew.

Then i found this "Every living organism wants to survive and be in existence."

My line is: Life: intends to continue.

According to de Vries' mutation theory, living organisms can develop changes to their genes that greatly alter the organism. These changes are passed down to the next generation, and lead to the development of new species. Once a new species has evolved, it becomes fixed and stops changing

Now that is just about as goofy vegan.

I haven't written a quality paper with peer review citations to show you. I know but you have helped me address a couple new angles to overcome.

So far, you have not done anything but remind me why I stepped away from the 'community'.


Thanks for the cool term.

Good for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The intent of life to continue, is what I compared to instinct when I first posted in this mess.

There is no evidence of intent in instinct.

AS usual, you need someone else to tell you and why you need something new to be recognized by others before you even consider the premise

There's that attack that you claim others make while you are making them.

Life is the evidence. Instinct is a premise debated as being the cause of the intent.

That might be more accurate to a limited extent, but the supports that the majority of living things do not possess the capacity to form intent. So there you go. Wrong again.

Random is the most common term used for evolving changes. I liken it to the big E's idea of 'god dont play dice'

As in the random, unpredictable nature of mutation. Selection is not a random process.

Do you observe nature and the natural evidence as relevant?

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions​

• T. Ryan Gregory

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 2, pages156–175 (2009)

i did not finish the paper to find the exact words but dang it was leaning towards my scope far more than you knew.

Then i found this "Every living organism wants to survive and be in existence."

My line is: Life: intends to continue.

This isn't nature and natural evidence. The quote you are claiming as such is just another person's opinion. You stopped reading when you found the deepity that you felt supported your empty claim.

According to de Vries' mutation theory, living organisms can develop changes to their genes that greatly alter the organism. These changes are passed down to the next generation, and lead to the development of new species. Once a new species has evolved, it becomes fixed and stops changing

Yes, but those changes do not arise by intent as your previously were claiming. Interesting how the goal post just moves with you.

Now that is just about as goofy vegan.

It is a summary of your own claim, so I agree with half of your assessment.

I haven't written a quality paper with peer review citations to show you. I know but you have helped me address a couple new angles to overcome.

So far, you have not done anything but remind me why I stepped away from the 'community'.

You've reminded me why it is a waste of time trying to inform some people of the facts.

Thanks for the cool term.

Interesting that in your self-proclaimed, near perfect, seemingly omniscient understanding of the subject, that you were unfamiliar with it. Hmmm. More evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science evolves. The scientists evolve with knowledge or end up obsolete.

And you have told us you never were. I'm sure the game will continue, but you'll have to play without me. I've seen enough to draw my conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For those interested, the paper discussed above is at the link below.

T. Ryan Gregory, R.T. 2009. Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evol. Educ. Outreach. 2: 156-175.

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions - Evolution: Education and Outreach

I couldn't find the quote about "Every living organism wants to survive and be in existence." No idea where it was mined from. It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the paper, so there is no context available to associate with it. Not an unusual feature of the style of presentation seen from the non-science position.

What it does say flies in the face of previous claims regarding intent, randomness, natural selection. In light of those claims it is strange to see it brought to bear as evidence of the veracity of those claims.

The title itself implies the state of natural selection as an accepted scientific concept and this is defined as the mechanism of evolution. Understandably, no mention of intent.

Here is the opening line that defines the environment as the source of the selection.

"Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next."

Note mention of selection as a non-random element. Recall that consideration of randomness was heaved at us as a bug bear that had no standing in the discussion. Seems that was wrong. Who woulda guessed it?

It goes on to reiterate the role of natural selection in evolution with no mention of intent.

"It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world."

I was particularly struck at how the article opines how poorly understood the theory is. As an example, we have seen such misunderstanding promoted on this thread as some sort of 'truth'. It is a pleasure to see this introduced to the thread by someone with a metaphorically shot up foot. I find, the self-refuting to be very cooperative in making my point for me.

It is a very good little review paper and worth reading, but I'll wind this down here with one final excerpt from the text regarding the issue of randomness again and how it is actually treated. There will be no mention that the survival of living things is random. Though previously cited as a claim of science, this is not so and the paper clearly highlights the erroneous not nature of that claim while pointing out how randomness is understood to be involved in the process.

"In particular, mutations are known to be random (or less confusingly, “undirected”) with respect to any effects that they may have. Any given mutation is merely a chance error in the genetic system, and as such, its likelihood of occurrence is not influenced by whether it will turn out to be detrimental, beneficial, or (most commonly) neutral."

This portion of the paper was discussing variation and the source of variation in mutation. Mutation is the random feature of evolution while, selection is the non-random component involving the interaction of that random variation with the action of the environment upon it. There is no evidence of any intent in the process.

While instinct drives the general effort to survive, it is not a mechanism that drives one phenotype to greater success over another. Merely following that instinct or, for those that can, wanting to survive is not a guarantee of survival or that in surviving, that particular genotype proliferates through the population by default. Over time, under natural conditions, the less fit genotypes will fall out of the population regardless of the instinct of the organisms that possess it. Not to wave a hand at the value and place of the survival instinct, but to point out that it is not a demonstration of intent and is not part of the mechanism of evolution. Populations in stasis also have a survival instinct.