Marx, Math And Myth

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.
Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.


Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.
Stop with the 80s postings. Your source is an extremist and looney tunes website if there ever was one.

You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved. There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.

" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis.

By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.

  1. (A)
    Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
  2. (B)
    Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.
At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski 2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski 2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "

However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.

Why waste bandwidth with debunked 1930’s vintage nonsense?
"Published: 07 November 2017"

I already claimed Fisher's theorem was destroyed in 2018. Why don't you learn to read better?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.

Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.

Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.
Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.


Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.
Stop with the 80s postings. Your source is an extremist and looney tunes website if there ever was one.

You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved. There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.

" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis.

By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.

  1. (A)
    Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
  2. (B)
    Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.
At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski 2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski 2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "

However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.

Why waste bandwidth with debunked 1930’s vintage nonsense?
"Published: 07 November 2017"

I already claimed Fisher's theorem was destroyed in 2018. Why don't you learn to read better?
I was curious why you were cutting and pasting debunked theories.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
>>She may just be a paid shill.<<

That is not in doubt, the only thing in question is Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or GOP? (I doubt it's the Russians, Chinese, or GOP, they would do a much better job of disinformation.)
Sheesh. Another straw man to avoid the truth that of which by the fools.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.
Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed. We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology. Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature. If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
It is based on characteristics already existing in DNA.

I realize books are anathema to you, (better look that up) but there is the novel The Big Sky. I read it long ago, but I believe a red-headed child is born and the father cannot accept that his wife was faithful because neither of them had red hair.

Diversity is due to traits already in existence but hidden by other traits.

When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement.

As of this moment, no one is able to prove the origin of the diversity on earth.....and Darwin's theory doesn't fill the bill.
But it is eminently valuable for atheists.
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.
Ho hum. Back to this again. You're the one desperately trying to bring creationists and IDers into the discussion, so you can post your wacky looney tunes website.

You have no evidence for abiogenesis while Dr. Louis Pasteur and his experiments show only life can create life.

Instead, let's get into your claims. Can you give us examples of the peptides forming? Tell us in your own words how the first peptide formed since it's hypothetical instead of actual observation.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
" 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."

Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for evolution.
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.
Nobody bought your fairy tale. You can't accept the fact that evolutionary biology has been totally ignored by medicine. Furthermore, what happened to the bad mutation penicillin? You just admitted the bacteria acquired resistance to it.

I answered your question about natural selection. Why not answer mine?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

Beneficial traits become more beneficial. Harmful traits become more scarce. Your bad mutation penicillin example just showed it becoming more scarce -- Penicillin Uses, Side Effects & Allergy Warnings - Drugs.com. I can't take it because I'm allergic to amoxicillin . Isn't this a big problem with evolutionary biology in medicine?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive
generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?
What you cut and pasted was correct:
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.​

Unfortunately you turned it around by adding your own commentary. As described in your pasting, natural selection is changing the genes of the population. THE POPULATION IS EVOLVING by your own admission.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none. It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it. Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Nobody bought your fairy tale. You can't accept the fact that evolutionary biology has been totally ignored by medicine. Furthermore, what happened to the bad mutation penicillin? You just admitted the bacteria acquired resistance to it.

I answered your question about natural selection. Why not answer mine?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

Beneficial traits become more beneficial. Harmful traits become more scarce. Your bad mutation penicillin example just showed it becoming more scarce -- Penicillin Uses, Side Effects & Allergy Warnings - Drugs.com. I can't take it because I'm allergic to amoxicillin . Isn't this a big problem with evolutionary biology in medicine?
You'll be happy to see I answered your post. BTW, it was not a fairy tale I told, it is exactly what happens by natural selection.
Unfortunately you don't understand the subject at all. Here is a great definition of evolution from YOUR post: "The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations".
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none. It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it. Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.
.
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive
generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?
What you cut and pasted was correct:
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.​

Unfortunately you turned it around by adding your own commentary. As described in your pasting, natural selection is changing the genes of the population. THE POPULATION IS EVOLVING by your own admission.
First answer my question what does evolution do to change natural selection from what we agreed upon?

Then in your last paragraph, you attribute to me what Darwinism states. You are one mixed up bird, probably a turkey.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
So how does "natural selection biology" operate? I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive
generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?
What you cut and pasted was correct:
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.​

Unfortunately you turned it around by adding your own commentary. As described in your pasting, natural selection is changing the genes of the population. THE POPULATION IS EVOLVING by your own admission.
First answer my question what does evolution do to change natural selection from what we agreed upon?

Then in your last paragraph, you attribute to me what Darwinism states. You are one mixed up bird, probably a turkey.
First, your question makes no sense. Second, if you cut and paste something without quotes, link, or reference, it is assumed to be yours.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,037
Reaction score
33,901
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none. It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it. Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.
.
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism

Anyone, even you, can explain Darwin's theory.

No one can prove it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top