Falsification theory of Natural Selection

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
For practical purposes, Natural Selection=differential reproductive success=false.

---

differential reproductive success is a MEASURE of natural selection,
not natural selection itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Also I don't think evolution should be generally understood to occur from a change in environment, but should be understood to start from a new trait/mutation. It might be very handy for creatures that before lived in the dark, that they have a set of spare eyes which they can now use in the changed light environment, but it's improbable they would have any spare set of eyes for if the environment changed to light.

---

Without a change in environment there is no GUIDE to evolution.In your example above, should these dark-dwellers have eyes, but
their environment is dark, then there is no advantage to having
the eyes. No survival advantage one way or the other in fact.The distribution of creatures with and without spare eyes would,
therefore be based purely on the genetics of the trait (recessive,
dominant, co-dominant, what have you).BUT should the environment change, such that there is now light,
and those with eyes find it easier to locate prey(say), they would
have a distinct survival advantage, and thereby an increased
chance of reproducting more offspring. The shift in the trait
frequency over a number of generations would tend to illinate
those individuals without eyes (though the no eye trait may
persist depending on the nature of the gene/allele).Evolution is a mechanism that allows species to adapt to changes
in the environment (the stimulus) by making use of heritable
traits (the raw material).As John said ... evolution requires both.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In the typical evolution/natural selection scenario the environment is static, and then lots of mutations are selected in this static environment (some reproduce, many don't). That is a factor more probable to producing mutations that contribute to reproduction, then having mutations of organisms prepared to deal with future mutations (changes) in the environment.

---

Show me a reference to natural selection that does not include
the concept of a changing environment. That's what natural
selection is about.Sometimes this concept is hidden within the idea of two
populations geographically isolated for some time. BUT
assuming one population remains in the original environment
and the other moves elsewhere, we have an explicit environment
change ... the population has gone somewhere else where conditions
are different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I know this is not so in the famed peppered moth example, but then are we supposed to believe that the blackness of moths didn't confer a contribution to reproduction prior to the trees turning black? I think not. What would this contribution be? I'm sure Darwinists can't tell me, eventhough they have done many studies on these moths.

---

Re-read the peppered moths example. Blackness IS stated as
contributing to reproductive success prior to trees turning
black. Black moths were more likely to be eaten, and therefore
produce less offspring for the next generation, as well as being
less evident in the current generation due to being eaten.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Once again you confirmed to me how useless it is to look at proportions in a population as Darwinists do, over looking at how things (like an eye, or black wingcolor) work in reproduction.

---

Once again you show that you do not understand natural selection
as put forward within ToE.How does an eye work in reproduction ?In what way does having an eye or not impact reproductive
capacity ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry, but this is just plainly ridiculous. Maybe you do know more about evolution theory then me, but that is irrellevant here. Your scenario of a changing environment is demonstrably improbable and relatively meaningless (because it doesn't neccessarily introduce a new trait), although it does occur, as explained before.

​

So how did the blackness of moth work then, prior to the change in environment? Was it also a camouflage color?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Yes, in a sense. The blackness of some of the moths worked as a kind
of anti-camouflage. This lead to the moth population being dominated
by white individuals, because their camouflage worked better, and
fewer were eaten.In this case it is a natural variability that leads to a change
in survival chances (i.e. natural selection).The change in colour frequency was a response to the soot
deposits on the trees. The moths were fortunate enough to have
a dark-coloured variant so that the species could survive the
change in the environment.Evolution does not happen unless there is a change in the
environment, because there is no pressure to change.Every process needs a stimulus and raw materials to work with ...
change is the stimulus, variability is the raw material.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
So then when a mutation occurs then there is no evolution? You are just mistaken.

---

As others have pointed out mutation by itself does not equal evolutionEvolution cannot have happened without mutations, but equally it
won't happen without a change in the environment.That is environment in the commonly accepted usage rather than
your limited usage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The blackness worked as anti-camouflage?

---

Yes. Black moth on white bark == very easy for birds to seeThe opposite of camouflage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Sorry but evolution can work without a change in environment, obviously, and this is how it typically works.

---

You are getting confused between a mutation bearing individual
and evolution of the species. They are not the same.Without some environmental pressure there is no advantage
to any particular trait, and so the distribution of that trait
within the population is purely determined by the genetics
of the trait (dominance, recessiveness, co-dominance).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There are no longnecked horses prior to long trees, but rather the trees were already long and then mutations occur to the "horses" of which some get a longer neck. No change in environment but still evolution.

---

That would not be sufficient to drive a trend for long necks
in the population. The only way that such a trend would be driven
is if, for some reason, the availability of 'low' forage was
restricted (perhaps by competition with another species, or
because the 'low' shrubs all die out, or ... ). In any scenario
in which it becomes a benefit to have a longer neck there MUST
be a change of some sort. It may be that the population which
contains the long-necked trait migrated from an area with
predominantly low shrubs to one with predominantly high
shrubs ... the environment can be considered to have changed, although
physically the population has MOVED from one environment to another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In your scenario the trait most probably already contributes to chance of reproduction (like black color of moths being camouflage in the dark), before any change in the environment occurred.

---

All factors need to be considered, naturally. Back to the peppered
moths, the plain observations are that when there were no soot
covered trees the population was dominated by white moths, and
when the soot covered trees were around the population was dominated
by black moths. The indication is that the camouflage effect
was MOST beneficial during the day.Remember that the moths example is not conjecture, it is an observed
phenomena which can be explained by natural selection. Not just
explained, it is predicted by the concept of natural selection.Just as an aside, I'm not sure that camouflage in the dark is
likely ... few nocturnal bug hunters are predominantly vision
based (are they?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Otherwise you are projecting something like an anticipatory force on the side of mutation.

---

No.For a mutation to be beneficial it needs to match its environment
in a manner which makes those individuals carrying the new trait
more likely to survive and ultimately pass that trait on.There is no prediction involved.I will concede that it is feasible to consider a mutation which
makes an individual better suited to its current environment
than its peers, but there is still a change to environment
because in that situation we have introduced competition as a new
environmental factor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before, competition is not required in Natural Selection.

---

It may not be required by natural selection, that does not mean
that when present it is not influential in natural selection.Competition is an environmental factor that needs to be taken
into account when considering natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The longnecked horses simply go their own way, even when they are in the same environment as the shortnecked ones. Hence we have both horses and giraffes, in stead of just giraffes, or just horses. They do not neccesarily compete each other into extinction.

---

You're missing the point, yet again.We have ONE population of giraffe-ancestors. Some have longer necks
than others.Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, since
it is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process.For long necks to become dominant in the population there must be
some stimulus (not just reproduction otherwise the distribution
would just be 1:3, 1:1, or whatever the genetics of the trait
would lead to).What possible benefit could there be to long necks if there
was sufficient food at all heights ?Perhaps long-necked giraffe ancestors could see predators from
further away ... that's still an environmental factor that
leads to a survival advantage, that leads to more long-necks than
short in the population.Perhaps you could suggest how, in the absence of natural selection,
giraffes could come into being (by speciation if you are a YEC).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are falling into a hole that I previously pointed out in the start of this thread, and repeated numerous times.

---

No, you are unable to understand natural selection and its
impact on populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

It is simply untrue that lowfoliage would have to be restricted for longneckedness to contribute to reproduction. Reproduction is a real thing, with actual offspring, and not a relative thing based on some comparison. The leaves on the top of the tree are very luscious and eating them contributes lots to reproduction.

---

So does eating the low growing foliage of other plants, otherwise
there would be no antelope, okapi, deer, etc.Survival is a real thing too.And again (though you seem to be ignoring it) differential reproductive success is not natural selection, it is a means of
measuring the impact of natural selection.With plentiful food at all levels, what would cause long-neckedness
to have a higher prevalance in the population (of giraffe ancestors)
than can be accounted for by the dynamics of the trait genetics ?That's what would have needed to happen for some giraffe ancestor populations to eventually become giraffes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You are saying that mutations need to match *future* environment, by saying that evolution happens from a changing environment. There seems to be sort of prediction involved with that on the part of mutations for them to anticipate the future environment.

---

No.Mutations happen. IFF they have a benefit within the environment
that the individual is born into, then that will afford that
individual a survival advantage, and the trait will be more likely
to persist in later generations. If it doesn't, or is detrimental,
then the trait may be erradicated or fall back to a distribution
based purely upon the reproductive process (like hair colour in
humans ... although one could argue for cultural beauty based
selection there I guess ).There is no prediction of the nature of the change at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Ummm... peppered moths are not a good example at all... Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day.

​

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’-British scientist Cyril Clarke.

---

You say they don't (I'm not arguing ... I don't know either), but then
support it with a quote that says 'We don't know where they rest'.
Pedantic, I know, but it doesn't seem entirely relevent.Perhaps the leaves were soot covered too ... we appear to have
insufficient data there, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Then you might talk about all those photos. Do you really want to know how it was done? Dead moths were glued to the tree-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ‘Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation’, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67—83, 1975

---

OK.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Also, there are many contradictory evidences of population changes. In some industrial areas, yes, the dark moths dominated, but in many other industrial areas the light moths dominated. In some non-industrial areas, dark moths dominated, in others, light moths.

---

OK ... so in different environments different colour distributions
were found. How is that a problem for natural selection ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Ironically, this really isn't evidence for evolution, it is just a shift in population. Take this analogy, cull out everyone but black people in the world. (no offense intended). Is this an increase in information? No!

---

It's not evidence for evolution, its evidence for natural selection.What has increase in information got to do with natural selection ?

I'm replying here ... but I have taken note of the behaviour
post from Quetzal too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
quote:
"Neck length on its own can have no impact upon reproduction, since
it is of no direct relevence to the reproductive process."

​

Emperical evidence shows for longnecks to be functional in getting at the leaves at the top of the tree. After consumption of these leaves, the leaves went to constititute new longnecked bodies.

---

Which is why I say 'no direct relevence'.You have just described natural selection as concerned with
survival. If the long-necks couldn't feed they couldn't
reproduce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

No impact? no relevance?

---

None ... on the ACT/process of reproduction ... only on the
organism's CHANCES for reproduction ... which is what I have been
debating about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
you are saying things which are demonstrably false.

---

Where ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, you have obviously lost touch with the reality of reproduction, through your focus on a meaningless comparison, thereby giving an excellent demonstration of the deceptiveness of the current setup of Natural Selection I had pointed out in the beginning of this thread. The above is still Natural Selection, it says that longneckedness is selected in, because it contributes to reproduction.

---

No, it's saying that long-neckedness us selected in because it
contributes to survival ... and survivors can produce more offspring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In your changed environment scenario the beneficial mutation would have to be present in the population at the time of the change in environment.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In my scenario with a static environment the beneficial mutation can arise in one of a great many generations of the population. Therefore my scenario is more probable to find a mutation that contributes to reproduction, and your scenario less so.

---

Without some change in the environment ... or I have to concede
sexual selection pereference (which are largely based upon expectations of survivability {bigger, stronger, better nest
builder ...} ) ... there will be no evolution.Evolution is where the entire make-up of the population changes.This means that the beneficial mutation HAS to be in place
at a time when it is nuetral, then spreads through a population
after several generations. IFF the environment changes such that
the expression of that trait becomes beneficial then selective
pressures work to bias for that trait.Without natural selection in terms of survival I can't see
a way to tip the scales ... doesn't mean there isn't another
way of course ... but natural selection seems like a close
match to me ... when viewed as the struggle for survival.Most critters spend much more time and energy surviving than
reproducing.You seem to be suggesting that the SAME random mutation can
occur in individuals in different generations. Is that what
you are suggesting ?