Natural Selection doesn't drive evolution

I think that the evidence points to an intelligent mind that created the genetic code, the engineering that goes on to produce a gene is what drives evolution. Natural Selection is something that occurs after the fact. It happens after the fit gene reaches the environment. The process the produces the gene is more advanced than any factory on earth. Randomness can produce a snowflake but it can't produce a error correcting code that produces a product. This on it's face is a silly presupposition but it's one that's made by people because of their belief system.

Natural Selection kicks in when a fit gene reaches the Phenotype. It's a BLIND PROCESS that simply says if you have a trait that will help the species survive it will win out in the population because of reproduction. Again, this is common sense and it's just a blind process. Here's an example.

Say I live in an area full of mountains and dusty roads. So I'm buying a new truck and I'm looking at all the trucks at the dealership. Now those trucks were produced by a process that needed an intelligent mind. This process is full of codes and instructions on how to build the trucks. So these trucks were "FIT" by the time they reached the environment(the showroom floor).

I then pick a truck and drive it home. When I get back home I find out the truck isn't very good traveling around the area that I live. So this truck will not survive in my environment so I will take it back and try to get a truck that has the traits to survive in my environment.

Where did these traits come from? How did these traits get so fit before they reached the environment? INTELLIGENCE

It's just silly to think that the process to produce a gene through things like transcription or error correction was a random process. It tells you that an intelligence has to be behind the process. The gene is fit before it reaches the environment.

Sometimes a mutation occurs because the process has been occurring year after year for billions of years. I remember in high school I worked at a factory over the summer. At this factory they had something called quality control. Even though there were people who could produce the products made at the factory with blind folds on because they have been doing it so long, they still made mistakes. You produce a thousand products and maybe 1 or 2 has a mistake.

Just think, the intelligent mind behind evolution has produced a process that has been copied over and over again for billions of years with relatively few mistakes.

How can a random process produce the code, the understanding of the code and a system that corrects itself? Again, natural selection doesn't have anything to do with it until the gene reaches the environment.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

How can a random process produce the code, the understanding of the code and a system that corrects itself? Again, natural selection doesn't have anything to do with it until the gene reaches the environment.

Who on earth, other than you just now, ever claimed natural selection had anything to do with genetic makeup?

Natural selection is essentially the last stage in "evolution" where animals that can adapt survive, and those who can't, don't..

In fact, you could argue, that natural selection is something entirely different, and unrelated to evolution.

Evolution dictates what that organism is and what it is going to be, natural selection is merely the name we apply to the fact that some species die off on their own.

Natural selection could also simply be called survival of the fittest.

anyways, I don't think your understanding of genetics is very in-depth, all of us carry dormant genes and genes that would be considered mutations.

If all the genes present in our DNA switched on, well, god only knows what type of creature you'd get.

Now, if genetics were different and only the genes being switched "on" are present, you'd have an argument, but that is not how it works.

Genetics deals with the molecular structure and function of genes, with gene behavior in the context of a cell or organism (e.g. dominance and epigenetics), with patterns of inheritance from parent to offspring, and with gene distribution, variation and change in populations. Given that genes are universal to living organisms, genetics can be applied to the study of all living systems, from viruses and bacteria, through plants (especially crops) and domestic animals, to humans (as in medical genetics). The fact that living things inherit traits from their parents has been used since prehistoric times to improve crop plants and animals through selective breeding. However, the modern science of genetics, which seeks to understand the process of inheritance, only began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the mid-19th century.[6] Although he did not know the physical basis for heredity, Mendel observed that organisms inherit traits via discrete units of inheritance, which are now called genes.

Although genes contain all the information an organism uses to function, the environment plays an important role in determining the ultimate phenotype—a phenomenon often referred to as "nature vs. nurture". The phenotype of an organism depends on the interaction of genetics with the environment.

Source

You are correct it indeed appears to be a totally random process.

For example some traits can become dominant which serve no beneficial purpose, and this is what we could call a random effect. There are many examples of this, and not just in the field of genetics.

You suggest that rather than natural selection driving the process, it must be "Intelligence" behind it.

I would like to ask you "What is Intelligence"?

If you really dig deep into this one, I believe that you will discover that there is no difference between what we define as "Intelligence" and what can be termed as the "Laws of the Universe".

I would argue that such terminology can easily be reflected between the two, and that there is almost no way to differentiate them.

I do however applaud your efforts at actually thinking about the subject reasonably, which is rather rare to come by especially within this subject (for obvious reasons).

I really like the direction you want to take this issue and will support it.
Philosophy is needed greatly in today's age and it is one of the most important aspects of a "civilized society" of which we are not.

i can say with confidence (having a B.S. biotechnology), that the OP is correct. but i can also tell you its flaws:

one of the underpinnings of the scientific method (and the scientific philosophy itself) is the relationship of cause and effect, specifically that causes propagate in a FORWARD TIME direction only. science is interested in modifying present causes to produce future effects.

but it should seem obvious to even the casual observer that life, or behaviors of living organisms, is predominantly goal-directed and purposeful. for example: if i decide to have lunch at taco bell, all of my behaviors in accomplishing that goal are caused by a "future cause" acting in BACKWARD TIME.

this very obvious property of life terrifies most biologists. biologists then calm themselves by speaking confidently about "apologetic evolution". they feel certain that it is "only a matter of time" before the data comes in which will connect (what the OP calls) intelligence to the mechanisms of physics. i can assure anyone reading this that currently no such evidence exists.

it is my firm belief that their efforts to validate the life-as-mechanism ideology is in vain.


unfortunately, there is no scientific method of future causes.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Where did these traits come from? How did these traits get so fit before they reached the environment? INTELLIGENCE

Neil Tyson debunks your OP.

And I can't believe people agreed with you, haven't you folks seen all this stupidity in evolutionary design?

Evolution is not intelligent, it's extremely stupid. It's a trial and error process that misses way more than it hits, and when it hits it's just by accident, and even then the evolutionary designs can be really messed up. There are many many examples of how NOT INTELLIGENT evolution is, and Neil Tyson only addresses a few of them here:

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Stupid Design"


Tyson just names a few examples of how unintelligent evolution is, but there are plenty more.

Evolution and the Unintelligent Design of Life Inherited Traits, Genetic Dysfunction and Artificial Life

1; In "The Origin of Life" by Paul Davies (2003) the author notes that 99% of all species have gone extinct - around 3 973 000 000 species have died out completely
2. The number of species that have become extinct is from ten to a hundred times those which exist today
3 - and that's not including the present "sixth mass extinction" which is caused by humankind's mass destruction of natural habitats. The vast majority of biologists and zoologists know that life is not 'designed' at all - let alone in an intelligent manner.

Where is the intelligence in 99% of all species going extinct? That's the opposite of intelligence!

And have you noticed how effortlessly many mammals give birth, but for human women it's an extremely painful process? If it was intelligent shouldn't human females give birth without severe pain, like other mammals?

Our birthing mechanism works best if our hips were still orientated for all-fours walking. As Humankind has continued to evolve, brain size has got bigger and bigger, meaning that now Human babies have to be born underdeveloped so that their brain can continue to grow and mature outside the womb, after birth at an awkward angle through the too-narrow birth canal. Giving birth through the pelvis has turned out to be severely limiting giving our new posture and increasing skull size; now, agility (defined by narrow hips) and baby brain-size are in direct competition. What a mess! If only evolution operated with some foresight, things would have turned out somewhat more practically....

Not only is this a painful process for the mother, but the human baby is probably one of the least developed of all mammals at birth, in fact you could say it's so helpless that relative to other mammals it's almost like a fetus that continues to develop outside the womb. If evolution was going to design human birth intelligently, it would have done a much better job than it did.

If you read the link there are lots more examples of unintelligent design.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


there can be little doubt, due to the cohesiveness of the field of molecular genetics, that dumb mechanical processes are most definitely at work. and that its principles can be used to develop incredible technologies.

....hmmm....thats a funny word there: "technology" isnt it?

now, it is apparent that scientific research often results in technology. what is often overlooked is that in Biology, the technology seems to be built-in (re: the OP).

for example, the most advanced Physics and Mathematics combined with the very smartest human minds gives us the height of human technology: the computer. technology and intelligence are nearly synonymous.

is is not peculiar, then, that CELLS ARE COMPUTERS?! (it would be silly of you to argue against this, but i am sure that you will.)

does it not follow, in a strictly logical sense, that if cells are computers, that computers are technology, and that technology is a result of intelligence, then cells are a result of intelligence?


...best.


p.s. i am certain that it is within your grasp to form a rational and cohesive argument based on your own observations. inserting lengthy "authoritative" opinions and mocking videos does not reflect well upon your ability to do so.....particularly on an anti-authoritarian forum.

Originally posted by tgidkp
is is not peculiar, then, that CELLS ARE COMPUTERS?! (it would be silly of you to argue against this, but i am sure that you will.).

It would be silly to say that these cells are not computers but it seems to be irrelevant to the topic of the thread:

Cell (microprocessor)

Cell combines a general-purpose Power Architecture core of modest performance with streamlined coprocessing elements[2] which greatly accelerate multimedia and vector processing applications, as well as many other forms of dedicated computation.

If that's not what you're talking about then quote me a source because I don't know what you mean. Computers can execute any code you program them to execute. Biological cells aren't that flexible as they can only perform a limited range of functions and aren't programmable like computers. If you want to stretch a point you can say stem cells might be programmable to some extent but most cells don't seem to be, but when the stems cells differentiate according to the programmed instructions in the DNA, they just follow all the steps, including the stupid ones. If you want to use programming analogy the code has tons of bugs in it and nobody's debugging it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Everything you said in your post and the stuff in the video you posted has nothing to do with anything I said in my OP..You're talking about how life behaves after the fact or after the fit gene has reached the environment. Of course species go extinct because once the gene makes it to the environment, some can't survive. It's just like all Ford trucks will not survive in every environment but they were produced by codes, information and intelligence.

What many evolutionist like to do is skip how life got here and how it came to be. I support evolution but just like the Ford truck didn't just show up in the showroom neither did life just show up on the planet. The process that produces genes requires codes, information and I say intelligence.

DNA is loaded with information. Secular evolutionist really insult reason and logic. I'm a Spiritual evolutionist and the beauty of intelligence, reason and logic is seen in things like DNA. The DNA molecule doesn't contain any information but the arrangement of these molecules convey information and that's evidence of an intelligent mind. The arrangement of these molecules produces an error correcting system more advanced than any computer or any factory on earth.

The gene is fit before it reaches the environment and whether or not it survives is a random process so of course there will be a lot of extinctions because some of these traits don't survive in the environment. The process that produces these traits is intelligent. It takes codes, information and intelligence to produce a trait that will be subject to the environment.

If I write my name on a chalkboard, you will not say that information came from the chalk but an intelligent mind.

If I write DBFEZD and I tell you that every second letter together spells a word, you would get BED. All of these things flow from information and intelligence. These are things you see in DNA. Again, I'm not talking about what happens after a gene has reached the environment. A lot of secular evolutionist really twist and turn logic on it's head. What they're saying is that the trucks just made it to the show room and the way the traits were came about that produced the car means nothing. All of the information, codes and instructions are meaningless.

Again, the gene is fit when it gets to the environment. Natural selection is a blind process that occurs because some of these traits make it in the environment and some don't. The error correcting fascinating process that produces these trait's through codes, information and INTELLIGENCE is truly remarkable!

It's funny that you always hear secular evolutionist say their not talking about how life got here just that evolution occurred. So lets just talk about how the cars made it to the showroom not the codes, information and intelligence that produced the truck. So let's just talk about evolution and natural selection but not how these things got to the environment. It's an inconvenient truth that secular evolutionist want to avoid.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

...not computers...not programmable...

??!! you must really be behind in reading. here you go:

www3.imperial.ac.uk...

www.nature.com...

web.mit.edu...

media.caltech.edu...

ETA: the fact that it is programmable at all is sufficient to prove my point with reference to technology. Can you think of any other naturally occurring system (not living) which is inherently programmable? i cant.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


i am not in favor of using terms such as "secular evolutionist". it is a label and a generalization and is therefore inherently accurate. it is name calling. also, i am not sure that that term means anything.

reply to post by tgidkp


None of these links support your argument.

The first link:

Scientists have successfully demonstrated that they can build some of the basic components for digital devices out of bacteria and DNA, which could pave the way for a new generation of biological computing devices, in research published today in the journal Nature Communications.

Building components for digital circuitry using organic matter is not the same as saying "cells = computers = intelligently designed".

The second link:

elf-replication has also been implemented with synthetic systems, including RNA enzymes designed to undergo self-sustained exponential amplification1, 2, 3, 4, 5. An exciting next step would be to use self-replication in materials fabrication, which requires robust and general systems capable of copying and amplifying functional materials or structures. Here we report a first development in this direction, using DNA tile motifs that can recognize and bind complementary tiles in a pre-programmed fashion.

Using natural self-replication to produce nano-materials is not the same as saying "cells = computers = intelligently designed".

The third link:

Mimicking cells with transistors Analog — rather than digital — circuits could enable models of biological systems that are more efficient, more accurate and easier to build.

This is not naturally occuring computing but man-made computing. Developments in the field of organic computing is not the same as saying "cells = computers = intelligently designed".

The fourth link:

PASADENA, Calif.—In many ways, life is like a computer. An organism's genome is the software that tells the cellular and molecular machinery—the hardware—what to do. But instead of electronic circuitry, life relies on biochemical circuitry—complex networks of reactions and pathways that enable organisms to function. Now, researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have built the most complex biochemical circuit ever created from scratch, made with DNA-based devices in a test tube that are analogous to the electronic transistors on a computer chip.

Same as above. The fluff statement "In many ways, life is like a computer" is not a scientific statement but a press-friendly opening hook. That is all. It is not the same as saying "cells = computers = intelligently designed".

All of the above is hijacking nature to do man's dirty work. That is all.

reply to post by tgidkp


The term secular evolutionist is not name calling. There are plenty people who are secularist that accept evolution. Is the term secular humanist name calling also?

Evolution occurs naturally and has been going on for over 5000000000 years. Google it and read about the discoveries and connections that genes have between organisms. It started with self replicating protein and has been evolving for so long that we humans cant wrap our mind around it. To help imagine it extend your arm and lets say that your shoulder is when first bacteria came to be, they had billions of years alone on the planet and even terraformed it so more complex life could evolve, thats around your wrist area. Dinosaurs appear on the back of your hand and vanish where your fingernails start. Now take a good look at the tip of your fingernail, the tiny part you should cut off...that is the time humans have had on this planet.

And even so a lot of our genes are exactly the same as in the most primitive species that have been around since the back of your hand

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by tgidkp

 

..."cells = computers = intelligently designed"...

you have misquoted me. nowhere in my posts have i stated that life is "designed". all that is suggested (by me, anyway, IDK about the OP) is that there is an underlying organization in the universe. many people have suggested different terms for it such as "teleos" and "formative causation". the concept that i am currently interested in is "syntropy" (most easily understood as the opposite of entropy). but, most certainly, i do not mean to imply some type of embodied mind.

All of the above is hijacking nature to do man's dirty work.

this is not simply a matter of man's extraction of combustible materials from the earth in order to power our motors (which is what i think more accurately descibes "hijacking nature"). rather, there is a technology built into the system. this is categorically differernt, i think.

WRT the links not being relevant: at what point in the use of a metaphor do the two things resemble each other so much that it can be said that they "are" each other? surely you didnt think that by clicking on the links you would find information about how cells are made of silicon wafers and copper wiring? no. of course not. it was merely my aim to support the claim that "cells are extremely similar to computers"...

...or, simply, cells are computers.


it is not necessary to be so obtuse.

Perhaps there is a thing called formless intelligence, which is tempting to place on a timeline as "prior to" the creation of all things. But it is not a creator divorced from the creation. Creator/creation are one. Therefore, formless intelligence exists prior to and inclusive of all forms. It is manifesting as separate objects with interconnected actions because it has no choice. This is the nature of its existence.

But from our vantage point, as a set of objects in this metaphorical jellyfish, it looks like there is an intelligence creating things to some and it looks like everything has inherent instruction without a creator/director to others.

reply to post by tgidkp

It is not obtuse to point that out that none of your links support your claim that cells are computers. "Cells are extremely similar to computers" is not the same as "cells are computers". You might think that it's a minor issue of semantics but with science, semantics is everything. "Computers" and "computing" have very clear definitions. Saying "X is like Y" is not the same as saying "X is Y". The former is an analogy, nothing more.

this is not simply a matter of man's extraction of combustible materials from the earth in order to power our motors (which is what i think more accurately descibes "hijacking nature"). rather, there is a technology built into the system. this is categorically differernt, i think.

No, we are hijacking natural mechanisms to perform unnatural, man-made tasks. Building logic gates out of organic matter is not a naturally-occurring process, any more than building a plane out of metal means that iron ingots buried in the earth are aeroplanes capable of flight.

reply to post by john_bmth


fine. you win. i restate it thus:

cells are biocomputers.


there. the semantics argument is over. for a definition of "biocomputer", please see above. and please do not next tell me that i am not free to coin my own terms or that such terms are meaningless.


YES. YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by john_bmth

 

fine. you win. i restate it thus:

cells are biocomputers.

No they are not. Again, biocomputing has a very specific definition that is not compatible with yours.

there. the semantics argument is over. for a definition of "biocomputer", please see above. and please do not next tell me that i am not free to coin my own terms or that such terms are meaningless.

You can coin all the terms you like, but when you start redefining commonly accepted terms then we have a problem.

YES. YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE.

You keep making assertions that are demonstrably false and redefining words to suite your argument. From my perspective, it is you who is being obtuse.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Everything you said in your post and the stuff in the video you posted has nothing to do with anything I said in my OP..You're talking about how life behaves after the fact or after the fit gene has reached the environment. ...

The gene is fit before it reaches the environment and whether or not it survives is a random process so of course there will be a lot of extinctions because some of these traits don't survive in the environment.

That video and the link is extremely relevant to your OP and the point you just made.

Did you look at the slide of the infants and the fetuses in the video? Some of those are the result of generic mutation and some the result of developmental abnormalities. As soon as the baby is conceived, you have new genetic material. It may be a mix of the parents DNA but it can also get zapped with a cosmic ray, a random accidental occurrence that could result in a mutation that is not in either of the parents DNA. Most of these mutations will be unfavorable for the survival of the individual, but once in a rare while the result may be favorable. That's the type of random, unintelligent type of process by which new generic variants occur, and most are less fit, few are more fit, than the DNA of the parents.

If there are no mutations in the infant, then yes you can say the infant's survival depends on environmental factors. But when the infant is mutated the survival depends on how the mutation affects them, in addition to the environmental factors. And the mutation occurs as a result of random, unintelligent causes, like the one celled baby's DNA getting struck by a random particle from the cosmic shooting gallery.

Originally posted by tgidkp
cells are biocomputers.

there. the semantics argument is over. for a definition of "biocomputer", please see above. and please do not next tell me that i am not free to coin my own terms or that such terms are meaningless.

YES. YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE.

What you are doing is taking standard words that have meanings defined in the dictionary, and using those words in a manner other than they are commonly defined.

Then, you are blaming other people for their inability to understand what the hell you are talking about. Do you see the irony in this? The communication problem is on your end, not the other 99.99% of us who are trying to communicate with each other using the definitions of words as they are defined in the dictionary. That's why we have dictionaries, so people can use the definitions in them and then won't have to call other people obtuse.

I coined my own phrase for this type of behavior. I call it "Dictionary abuse", and it's defined as taking a word in the dictionary, and assigning a meaning to it that's not in the dictionary. People that do that and then blame others for not understanding them have serious opportunities for self-improvement through introspection.

Where people go wrong is they think species evolve. This isn't the case. Species don't evolve genes do. Evolution occurs on a genetic level and different species are the end product of a genetic process. It's like saying Toyota cars evolve. It's just the codes, information and instructions change and the different makes and models are the end product of those changes.

AGAIN, SPECIES ARE THE END PRODUCT OF A GENETIC PROCESS.

For instance, red hair is a genetic mutation of gene called MC1R. This is a neutral mutation that's neither helpful or hurtful to the species. SUMO-4 mutation is a contributor to type 1 diabetes which isn't beneficial to the species. Say a species has reddish color fur and they're easy to spot in the woods. A mutation occurs that gives the species a color of fur that makes it easier to survive. This species will grow will the reddish color species will not and may go extinct.

This all occurs on a genetic level. Natural Selection is a blind process that happens after the gene has reached the environment.