The idea that natural selection alone can produce evolution, makes for a discussion stopper. Here's why: (a)without any specifics on the mechanisms that produce selections that are outside the genome, and (b)depending upon "natural selection" to provide a path to evolution without any mechanism whatsoever, the argument stumbles upon the question, "how?" How can selection choose features that are not there?
The answer is not as complex as one might think. The answer is: mutation, of several diverse varieties. In previous posts I have provided a number of references that indicate this, and I now believe that it is incontrovertably a part of what I will call TENS/MUT: "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection on Mutations". Once this is established, the conversation can progress to the next question, which is: "How frequently are positive mutations empirically seen?"
This is very important in attempting to judge whether TENS/MUT actually has any teeth. For this reason, my next search will be for instances of positive mutations that are empirically proven to occur within the human genome. One caveat is that most sources insist that if mutations are not used, then they will be lost very soon in the selection process. So one might think that a single mutation must be useful in improving the probability of being selected, ie. a fitness improvement.
If anyone has information on single mutation, positive selection, please comment.
4 comments:
www.talkorigins.org has a wealth of information on evolution.
By the way, Stan, while I like your website, I have to disagree with you on the matter of ID. I'm pretty much in league with Kenneth Miller.
I also have a blog now. Feel free to visit it. And also, I sent you an email a few weeks ago asking about non-contingency, in case you remember me.
Alex, yes I remember you. Welcome!
The only position that I remember taking on ID is that the Atheist positions are all refutable, and that the argument against ID has devolved into a political argument in order to control education.
What is your position on ID?
Honestly, I think ID has failed as science. I don't think I've seen it make any claims yet that can't be refuted by evolution; on the other hand I haven't researched the issue completely. Kenneth Miller has an evolution page where he gives rebuttals to most ID assertions.
When you say "refuted by evolution", do you mean that evolution proves the ID science to be false, or that evolution seems to make a simpler answer?
I personally do not follow any of the ID science claims, and I am not even sure what the claims are. I am not sure that any materialist-based science can prove intelligent design. At best, it is an inference being taken from observations of complexity, which evolution most certainly has not proven to answer. Claims otherwise by evolutionists are in the same "wishful thinking" category as intelligent design.
For my purposes as a rational observer, neither paleo-evolution nor ID can withstand any intellectual integrity testing.
I am trying to understand what the data actually says about bio-evolution; it is difficult to decipher and the volume of papers alone is daunting. But I am making adequate progress, and have not found anything pointing to true evolution so far.
Post a Comment