Most observed evolution is deterioration not advancement

[stcordova]

For evolution to proceed as Darwin and Spencer conceived, "survival of the fittest" would have to mean the children are more genetically advanced than their parents.

What they have actually argued is that the the fittest of the offspring have a slightly higher probabilty of surviving, but that does not imply the offspring themselves are more genetically advanced than the parents. But Darwin and Spencer beguiled the world into thinking that if the most fit kids survived this some how implied the kids were more genetically advanced than the parents.

Since the overwhelming amount of new mutations are harmful (even if to small degree), the kids on average are more defective than parents. Hence, the fittest don't really survive.

Some will argue anti-biotic resistance and pesticide resistance show genetic advancement, but that is dubious. Many anti-biotic resistant strains are more reproductively successful because they have a defect that reduces the likelihood they die from certain anti-biotics and pesticides. Furthermore, in other cases, anti-biotic resitance is evolved because the bacteria acquired genetic information from other sources through plasmid exchange of pre-existing genetic material.

The majority of lab and field observed cases of novel mutations conferring Darwinian advantage involved defects of otherwise functional systems.

To illustrate the point, Octomom is mentally defective and dysfunctional, but she made 14 kids, whereas very brilliant and wealthy scientists like Richard Dawkins had only 1 kid. In the world of Darwin, Octomom is more fit that Richard Dawkins.

But the real question is whether each generation's genomes are sicker than their parents. There is little doubt of that. And if that is the case now, and more importantly, if that is the case in the past, then the fittest die. By fittest, I mean, more genetically complex.

Further, if a species group goes completely extinct, this means there is no more opportunity for advancement of more complex life forms. The number of species are dying off quickly in the present day.

[FarWanderer]

Since the overwhelming amount of new mutations are harmful (even if to small degree), the kids on average are more defective than parents. Hence, the fittest don't really survive.

What?

"Survival of the fittest" is a comparason between the fitness of kids with each other, not the average fitness of kids vs. their parents.

The whole point is that the kids with advantageous mutations fare better than the kids with benign mutations, who in turn fare better than the kids with disadvantageous mutations. This means the kids with the most useful traits are the ones who themselves have the most of their own kids to pass on those traits to.

To illustrate the point, Octomom is mentally defective and dysfunctional, but she made 14 kids, whereas very brilliant and wealthy scientists like Richard Dawkins had only 1 kid. In the world of Darwin, Octomom is more fit that Richard Dawkins.

Yep. And?

Biological fitness is just that. It's not a value system. Few evolutionists measure a person's value by their biological fitness.

But the real question is whether each generation's genomes are sicker than their parents. There is little doubt of that. And if that is the case now, and more importantly, if that is the case in the past, then the fittest die. By fittest, I mean, more genetically complex.

Then by the fittest you don't mean what evolutionists mean. Not even close. Fitness, according to evolutionists, is a measure of an individual's effectiveness at passing on its biological traits to new organisms. A simple organism may be very fit, or a complex organism may be very unfit.

Genetic complexity is nothing more than a natural consequence of biodiversification over time. It's not a goal of evolution, merely a side effect.

[stcordova]

"Survival of the fittest" is a comparason between the fitness of kids with each other, not the average fitness of kids vs. their parents.

If that's the case, then "survival of the fittest" says nothing about whether evolution will improve the genome toward more integrated complexity and/or health. Our ancestors might have been healthier in terms of less allergies, diabetes, myopia, and a multitude of other inherited defects, etc.

Do you agree most mutations to protein coding genes, to non-coding regulatory complexes would either be neutral or compromise function on average? If so, then on average the kids are sicker and less functionally advanced than the parents. And if so, evolution from simplicity to more complexity is pretty much precluded.

"Survival of the fittest" is a comparason between the fitness of kids with each other, not the average fitness of kids vs. their parents.

Then it's a pretty meaningless statement given Darwin and Spencer were trying to portray their theories as explaining the evolution of primitive life to something more complex for the reasons I stated. If it says nothing about the children being on average better than parents, and if in fact on average the children are functionally compromised relative to their parents, then evolutionary advance will not happen over time.

What Darwin and Spencer have done is equivocate the notions of what it means for the fittest to survive. Fitness is defined horizontally (between competing offspring) and then used as some sort of proof of vertical improvement of functionality (between parent and child). Illogical, non-sequiturs, pretending prove ideas through equivocation.

In fact, we can compare ancestral bacteria to descendant bacteria in some cases and we have demonstrated large amounts of reductive evolution (deterioration) in the lab. Large amounts of paralogous genes and all sorts of genetic robustness gets compromised over time.

Darwin purports to show that ever increasing functionality is feasible over time because offspring can compete with each other, but fails to consider the case where all the offspring on average are more defective than the parents. Given most mutations compromise function or are neutral at best, the kids on average should be expected to have more compromised functions than parents.

We see this in the lab and field, the only place where the opposite happens are in evolutionary narratives, but not in real time field and lab observations.

For example:

Genome Reduction as Dominant mode of evolution:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 300037/pdf

[FarWanderer]

Given most mutations compromise function or are neutral at best, the kids on average should be expected to have more compromised functions than parents.

Yes. But parents are, simply by virtue of being parents, the more fit of their generation.

Comparing the average member of one generation (the average child) to the average child-producing member of the previous generation (the average parent) is comparing apples and oranges.

[Peter]

For evolution to proceed as Darwin and Spencer conceived, "survival of the fittest" would have to mean the children are more genetically advanced than their parents.

I don't need to read past this statement because you clearly don't understand evolution. For starters, what do you mean by "genetically advanced?"

One of the requirements for evolution to occur is that offspring exhibit genetic variation from the parents (perfect clones can never evolve). Natural selection then chooses which variations to keep and which to discard. This process over many millions of generations can evolve man from mouse. The concept is really dead simple.

[stcordova]

I don't need to read past this statement because you clearly don't understand evolution. For starters, what do you mean by "genetically advanced?"

Something is more genetically advanced if it is simply healthier or has more integrated capabilities. If a parent fish that can see gives birth to a blind fish the blind fish is not as genetically advanced as the parent since function is lost.

The topic of this debate was deterioration. One way Darwinists deal with the problem of deterioration is to argue there is not really any notion of better or worse in the functional sense, only in the reproductive sense.

If a mentally compromised individual or a blind cave fish makes more offspring, then in the Darwinian sense, they are more "fit". But this leads to bizarre unintuitive way of viewing the world. In the Darwinian sense, people with sickle cell anemia are more "fit" in a malaria and insect rich environment like Africa, but in the functional and medical sense it is a terrible disease. Same can be said for other inherited disorders which Darwinists label as selectively favorable like Tay-Sachs disease, obesity, high cholesterol. Some like Thronhill, Palmer, and Buss argue the tendency to rape and murder are favorable and desirable traits in the Darwinian sense since it tends to perpetuate offspring of such individuals and reduce the offspring of their competitors.

Natural selection then chooses which variations to keep and which to discard.

What do you mean by Natural Selection? What nature actually decides to keep or what Darwin conjectures nature keeps. The two notions are not the same. What Darwin claims is natural selection, isn't what happens in nature and it isn't selection in any meaningful sense of the word.

If lightning strikes a creature even thought it might be smarter and stronger, is that natural selection? If a natural disaster wipes out a species is that natural selection? If humans start to destroy eco systems because of industrialization and thus wipe out large numbers of species, is that natural selection? What defines natural selection? What is Natural Selection? What actually happens in nature or what Darwin says happens in nature.

Let me pose this simple question. All the rapid extinction going on today, is that an example of natural selection? If you say, "no" then I'll respond by saying, "well clearly that's what's happening in the real natural world, so how can you say it's not natural? How can you possibly argue what's going on isn't natural? If it's not natural, what would you say it is, magical?"

If you say "yes", then I'll respond by saying, "then that proves my point, most directly observed evolution is deterioration, not advancement."


You might argue, "that's not what Darwin meant by natural selection". Fine, then what Darwin said is natural selection isn't what really goes on in the real world, only in his imagination.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 6 by stcordova]

Natural selection is the process by which better adapted organisms tend to survive to reproduce with greater odds than others.

The overwhelming majority of children are not deteriorated, seemingly they are effectively unchanged. The vast majority of those that have mutations are bad mutations i.e cancers, but they generally don't do well enough to propagate their afflictions. The ones with positive or neutral mutations often do.


Look at this, for example:
http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/
You can mess with the mutation rate and all sorts of settings if you like.

[stcordova]

Natural selection is the process by which better adapted organisms tend to survive to reproduce with greater odds than others.

In that case, given what is happening today, it looks like the most complex species are likely to get eliminated leaving only simpler ones (like bacteria and insects) to prosper. But then, that only demonstrates, natural selection hasn't been shown to facilitate the emergence of more complex life, it does a good job of eliminating it in favor of simple life.


Extrapolating these observations then suggest natural selection does not diversify complexity (like evolving a fish into a bird), it eliminates it (it kills birds). Btw, birds species are going extinct at an alarming rate. That's what natural selection is really doing in the wild right now.

My hypothesis: "Most observed evolution is deterioration not advancement" stands.

One might argue Natural Selection behaved differently in the past and created more complexity. But to assert that is to claim nature behaved in a radically different way than today or recorded history.

[Clownboat]

"Survival of the fittest" is a comparason between the fitness of kids with each other, not the average fitness of kids vs. their parents.

If that's the case, then "survival of the fittest" says nothing about whether evolution will improve the genome toward more integrated complexity and/or health. Our ancestors might have been healthier in terms of less allergies, diabetes, myopia, and a multitude of other inherited defects, etc.

Do you agree most mutations to protein coding genes, to non-coding regulatory complexes would either be neutral or compromise function on average? If so, then on average the kids are sicker and less functionally advanced than the parents. And if so, evolution from simplicity to more complexity is pretty much precluded.

"Survival of the fittest" is a comparason between the fitness of kids with each other, not the average fitness of kids vs. their parents.

Then it's a pretty meaningless statement given Darwin and Spencer were trying to portray their theories as explaining the evolution of primitive life to something more complex for the reasons I stated. If it says nothing about the children being on average better than parents, and if in fact on average the children are functionally compromised relative to their parents, then evolutionary advance will not happen over time.

What Darwin and Spencer have done is equivocate the notions of what it means for the fittest to survive. Fitness is defined horizontally (between competing offspring) and then used as some sort of proof of vertical improvement of functionality (between parent and child). Illogical, non-sequiturs, pretending prove ideas through equivocation.

In fact, we can compare ancestral bacteria to descendant bacteria in some cases and we have demonstrated large amounts of reductive evolution (deterioration) in the lab. Large amounts of paralogous genes and all sorts of genetic robustness gets compromised over time.

Darwin purports to show that ever increasing functionality is feasible over time because offspring can compete with each other, but fails to consider the case where all the offspring on average are more defective than the parents. Given most mutations compromise function or are neutral at best, the kids on average should be expected to have more compromised functions than parents.

We see this in the lab and field, the only place where the opposite happens are in evolutionary narratives, but not in real time field and lab observations.

For example:

Genome Reduction as Dominant mode of evolution:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 300037/pdf

I'm curious, how do you explain the biodiversity of life on this planet that we witness?
I would like to compare your theory with the one I understand. Pretend that we agree that evolution is false. I want to know what evidence you have and I'm not interested in you falsifying the theory of evolution here.
Thanks.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 8 by stcordova]

Could you formulate that into actual data?
Even if there were a large number of species going extinct... there are a lot of species, and new ones being found all the time. Maybe there are ones we didn't even know about that went extinct (in recent times, we know that for prehistoric times).

99% of all species that ever lived are estimated to be extinct.

It does not suggest that natural selection can't lead to complexity (and a bird isn't necessarily more complex than a fish - especially given that no biologist uses the word fish in any non-trivial matter), what you've stated is "it looks like" (you've literally said this) "the most complex species are likely to get eliminated".

There are all sorts of reasons you can't just rely on human observation for any serious conclusion. Have you got lists of extinct species? Are you comparing it to estimates of species that have gone extinct in past times? To estimates of how many new species appear? Have you considered how the modern climate and environment might affect your hypotheses?

You can't just say "I've heard of lots of species going extinct lately, therefore evolution can't be successful".


You can't, by definition, observe deterioration in natural selection (whether or not you include n.s. in evolution is another discussion, some simply define evolution as genetic change)
You can observe things that are naturally selected out. But that's not deterioration. You can observe mutations that are deterior. But that's not deterioration in evolution.