Natural Selection Is Teleological= Therefore Self-Contradicting

If life evolved from a single cell, by descent with modification through natural selection, to the complexity and diversity we have today and throughout history, we can conclude it was the product of a slow accumulation of genetic mutations. Neutral genetic mutations are not relevant to this example, for they are neither detrimental, useful nor beneficial. Descent with modifications through Natural Selection dictates an accumulation of minute physical mutations over time. Every episode of a physical mutation is accompanied by a multiple of rejects. There would have been millions upon millions of physical mutations since the first cell. Based on science [observation and experiment] physical mutations are highly detrimental to living beings. 99% detrimental is a conservative number. Logically we can conclude that with every physical mutation, since the beginning of life, there was a 1% chance of life continuing. Following NS and science to a logical conclusion, billions upon billions of mutations should have extinguished life. The odds are highly against any successful accumulation of good variations that leads to a beneficial mutation. This is equivalent to continue rolling the same one hundred side dice and landing on the same number. Unguided natural forces could not achieve that level of repeatable effects. The dice is obviously loaded.

Use the heart, for example, specific material, shapes, dimensions, locations, etc. are needed for a good variation, and without very specific variations, the heart will not evolve into a functional heart. This is true for every part of the body, of any creature. Descent with modification through NS is the cause, a heart evolving is the effect. When the cause continues to produce the same effect despite the overwhelming odds against it, one has to question if the equation was rigged to continue to get the same result.

When the same cause brings about the same effect, over and over again, even though the probability is against it, it is teleological. This is because Natural Selection is ordered towards the same purpose, reproduction, and survival. Despite the odds of mutations surviving, new generations have continued to come into existence. Logically Natural Selection is teleological and therefore self-contradicting.

teleological = relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. "teleological narratives of progress" THEOLOGY - relating to the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world. "a teleological view of nature"
Of course, there's also a good chance that you misunderstand what little you've learned about Evolution.

How are you with appreciating Deep Time?

Perhaps you simply need to study the topic of Evolution a bit more until you understand it better.

Scientists have been observing natural selection in action on may different levels, whether you believe it to be self-contradictory or not.

 

Again we are back to the problem of the incapacity to recognizing the division between Physical Reality and our Mindscape.

I did a little surfing and lots has been written about the topic. Seems to be another one of those dog chasing tail arguments, having more to do with how we perceive the natural world, than with actual learning to understand Evolutionary processes.

I do think Derleth’s makes some valuable observations:

derleth on July 5, 2012

https: // news.ycombinator - com/item?id=4201593

> everything that’s considered evidence of evolution could also be considered evidence of teleology.

No. Teleology has a goal in mind and evolution has been seen to run down dead ends many, many times. All of the extinct species are dead ends.

> What is there that exists that is fundamentally incompatible with teleology existing or makes it highly unlikely?

All of the extinct species. The fact the human eye has a blind spot whereas the squid eye does not. The fact cancer is possible. If I had a biology textbook closer to hand, I could go on at length.

> What makes you think that you would see evidence for it if it existed?

If we can’t see something, or measure it in any other way, or otherwise provide evidence for its existence, then why should we ever behave as if it existed?

> evidence in favor of teleology

I’ve yet to see any actual evidence in favor of teleology in evolution. Non-teleological explanations are simpler and they also explain all of the weird crap we see. In addition, our non-teleological theories have allowed us to predict quite a bit about how biology works in the real world. That mix of simplicity and increased predictive power makes the non-teleological theories a lot better than the previous teleological ones.

Based on science [observation and experiment] physical mutations are highly detrimental to living beings. 99% detrimental is a conservative number.
Where did you get this science?

As a lay-personal who’s been regular blown away by the scientific discoveries that have unfolded this past many decades regarding Evolution’s biology and it’s overall grand pageant - I can appreciate the human mind being overwhelmed by the organization and the “smarts” that Evolution displays countless times. Just contemplating the renditions of molecular machines in action and such, can make one’s mind dizzy, literally. It’s overwhelming and that’s why I believe it’s a very human impulse to entertain Intelligent Design.

But, at the same time I appreciate that those thoughts are to be categorized as philosophical/religious questions - they belong to the domain of our Mindscapes, that is all the thoughts our brain produces for us.

Intelligent Design has no place in understanding the Science of Evolution, since Science is dedicated to soberly understanding the Physical Reality we are immersed within, as objectively as possible.

Intelligent Design is dedicated to helping people simplify something that’s too tough for them to learn about and grasp. It’s a crutch, it’s all about us, rather than focused on the natural world and how it unfolds around us.

Where did you get this science?
 

Physiology = form determines function. The arrangement of the amino acids is very important. If you look at a protein under a microscope, one striking feature is its lack of symmetry. Looks more like a dust bunny, and somewhere in this chaos, is the functional site. One change in the amino acid arrangement could, and in many times, makes the protein dysfunctional.

Change the form of hemoglobin and you have sickle-cell. Change the shape of the insulin receptors on the cell membrane, and you have a diabetic. Change the size of the heart and you have cardiomegaly. Change the shape of the alveoli and you have COPD. Change the circumference of a cardiac vessel you have a heart attack. Change the thickness of a myelin sheath and you have multiple sclerosis, change the circumference of an intestine and you have an intestinal obstruction. Etc. etc. etc.

Of course, there’s also a good chance that you misunderstand what little you’ve learned about Evolution.

How are you with appreciating Deep Time?

Perhaps you simply need to study the topic of Evolution a bit more until you understand it better.

Scientists have been observing natural selection in action on may different levels, whether you believe it to be self-contradictory or not.

Again we are back to the problem of the incapacity to recognizing the division between Physical Reality and our Mindscape.

I did a little surfing and lots has been written about the topic. Seems to be another one of those dog chasing tail arguments, having more to do with how we perceive the natural world, than with actual learning to understand Evolutionary processes.

I do think Derleth’s makes some valuable observations:


 

As a lay-personal who’s been regular blown away by the scientific discoveries that have unfolded this past many decades regarding Evolution’s biology and it’s overall grand pageant – I can appreciate the human mind being overwhelmed by the organization and the “smarts” that Evolution displays countless times. Just contemplating the renditions of molecular machines in action and such, can make one’s mind dizzy, literally. It’s overwhelming and that’s why I believe it’s a very human impulse to entertain Intelligent Design.

But, at the same time I appreciate that those thoughts are to be categorized as philosophical/religious questions – they belong to the domain of our Mindscapes, that is all the thoughts our brain produces for us.

Intelligent Design has no place in understanding the Science of Evolution, since Science is dedicated to soberly understanding the Physical Reality we are immersed within, as objectively as possible.

Intelligent Design is dedicated to helping people simplify something that’s too tough for them to learn about and grasp. It’s a crutch, it’s all about us, rather than focused on the natural world and how it unfolds around us.


 

Why the fallacy. Red herring = the topic is not whether NS exists or not but that if it did it is teleological.

Your ‘science free’ response to a science topic was a personal testimonial, containing nothing of science.

But I am curious, you state that NS has been observed multiple times, but failed to post about. Could you please point to NS in action today.

 

 

 

Could you please point to NS in action today.
It is constantly in action. Changes in the weather affect every species, constantly. Your question indicates a lack of understanding of what your asking.
When the same cause brings about the same effect, over and over again, even though the probability is against it, it is teleological.
you made up a probability, didn't cite it when asked, and didn't consider the factor of time. A 1% chance is pretty good when you are talking about thousands of years and millions of interactions.
It is constantly in action. Changes in the weather affect every species, constantly. Your question indicates a lack of understanding of what your asking.
Please point to one occurrence that supports NS.
you made up a probability, didn’t cite it when asked, and didn’t consider the factor of time. A 1% chance is pretty good when you are talking about thousands of years and millions of interactions.
Time is irrelevant. Casinos make money on probabilities. In the game of roulette, one has 1 chance in 38 that the ball will land on the number one picks. For argument sake let's say you walk into the casino and win 100 times in a row at the roulette table, after you repeatedly change your bets. The probability of the ball falling into a given pocket 100 times consecutively is extremely small 1 chance in 38^100 or 1x10^58. You can place your bet every 10 minutes or 10k years, time has no bearing on the outcome. But also note, any outcome whose probability is greater than 1x10^25 is a mathematical impossibility and mathematical impossibilities do not exist. When I espouse 1% chance of success to NS I am being generous to NS.

Back to the casino. = In this case, the croupier will reject the idea of you winning fairly for several reasons. The game is rigged for you to lose. The rejection will not only be based on the improbable sequence of events but also the improbable sequence of winnings in the game. Chance is ruled out because a pattern of events has been established which advances a goal or performs a function = you winning money.

The same applies to NS.

Time is irrelevant.
Time is how more events happen. 1% means out of 100 offspring, one will have the mutation that changes the species (this is your number, I'm just using it). If there are a million offspring, over time, how many mutations is that?

Oh, and this.

I suggest you read the post again. The 1% is not the probability of a new species evolving from its parent but the probability of a minute beneficial mutation appearing. Following the theory of evolution, it is an accumulation of minute mutations over a large period of time that brings about a new species. One has to define what is beneficial.

Everything physical is the composite of form and matter. For descent with modification through natural selection to have happened every new minute physical variation had to be the right matter = to keep it simple = specific tissue made up of specific cells in a specific order or combination of. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, you have the problem of form = it has to be the specific three-dimensional shape. Physiological rule = form determines function. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, it has to be in the right location. The chances of any variation of cardiac tissue manifesting itself on the nose, leg, finger, heart, etc. are equal. If on the heart it again has to be the right location. Nothing in nature guarantees this.

Next, it has to be ‘moved’. There is nothing in nature that guarantees, that once created, random variations can be ‘selected’ or ‘directed’ to reproduce. The appearance of a variation that brings about a mutation is no guarantee that that variation would be passed on to its offspring.

Calculate the probabilities, you have an endless series of possibilities, when the product of the equation is based on material, form, location, and reproduction. The probability can easily calculate into INF. So 1% is generous.

The 1% has to overcome the above hurdles to be considered beneficial, and a 1% chance is no guarantee that out of every 100 mutations there will be 1 good mutation. Your argument is similar to guaranteeing that if I place my bet on one number [on a roulette table] I am guaranteed to win 1 out of 38 chances.

Let’s keep it simple. Instead of 1 out of 100 let’s apply 1 out of 2. Sometimes one has to look at things from another perspective. The odds of 64 consecutive heads when flipping a coin is 1.8 chances in 10^19. [My error before. 1x10^20 is the mathematical impossibility threshold]. If you flipped the coin every second for 50 years you would have flipped it 1.6X10^9. Adding time to the equation works against the TOE.

 

We have to define the terms. What you have presented is microevolution, changes within a species or kind, but it stills remains the same species or kind. The beaks on Darwin’s finches did change size and shape, but they remained finches. The same applies to your article, they are still birds. What is argued aginst is macroevolution, fish evolving into frogs, etc.

If you believe in what you call microevolution, then it is just a matter of time and organisms exposure to various ecological conditions over time, that enough microevolutionary changes become enough that the resulting organism is something other than the organisms it evolved from

Time, brother. There are humans in the world today who have evolved spleens that are 50% larger than those of other humans. That appears to have happened over a time span of only 1,000 years. So multiply by 1,000. Then in only 1 million years you have an organism that evolved from a human, but with 1,000 major differences from their human ancestors.

Or maybe it will take 2 million or 3 million years. Let’s say 10 million years. Then you could have an organism that differs from our contemporary humans by 10,000 major physiological differences. Would it still be a homo sapien? Or would it be something else?

 

Your post is a ‘science free’ testimonial of faith.

But let’s address this with science, logic, and reason.

Following Darwinism to a logical conclusion in between the parent and the new creature are multiple intermediates in various stages of evolution alongside multiple variations that have been rejected, accumulating over millions of years. The number of intermediate variations good and bad should far outnumber the parent and the new creature. The modification in ‘descent through modification’ are the parts that are incomplete, the variations that are accumulating over millions of years. So a gradually created new creature would appear on the fossil record 1% formed gradually increasing till 100% formed over millions of years alongside multiply rejected variations. The fossil record contains zero intermediate fossils or rejected intermediates. Every creature disappears as it appears on the fossil record no transition whatsoever. 161 years after Darwin published ‘Origin of Species’ we can conclude that what gradual creation theory demanded was missing because Darwin’s theory was wrong and the fossils were right. If TOE is true, we should be tripping over transitional fossils, but there are none to trip over.

God Bless

TWM

Let’s consider human evolution. Since humans are relatively “new” on the evolutionary tree.

The fossils of intermediate versions of humans, have been very rare and hard to come by, but over the years, quite a collection of various intermediate types (that have lead in some branches) to homo sapiens, have been discovered. And among those were humans that were around for millions of years. Still their fossils have been hard to come by.

Time brother. Time erases a lot. Many intermediate organisms that proved unsuccessful in the long term, quite possibly, were not around long enough to leave much of a fossil record.

But I suppose you have a credible alternative to the TOE.

Would that be God or aliens?

 

Again, you are not posting science but an opinion.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which a recognized problem is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. No theory of origins can be proved scientifically because the essence of the scientific method is observation and experimentation.

So let’s address some of these rare intermediate versions. Piltdown man = modern ape jaw attached to a modern human skull. Nebraska man based on someone’s imagination of a single tooth [that was found] = found later to have belonged to a pig.

Peking man who was once presented as an ape-man has now been reclassified as Homo erectus.

Homo erectus. Smaller in size than the average human, with a smaller brain and head size. But note the brain size is within the rage of humans today, possessing the same middle ear anatomy. Their remains have been found in the same strata or close to the strata as Homo sapiens. They are human.

There is no evidence in the fossil record that proves man evolved from a common ancestor that was shared with chimpanzees.

What you are presenting is comparative anatomy, it is highly ambiguous and subjective. One can come up with almost any interpretation from the fossil record. Within a species, there are so many variations that could be interpreted as different species. Let’s say that millions of years ago the horse and the dog went extinct, and we find several skeletons of each. The largest is the Clydesdale and the smallest the Falabella which is 17 inches tall. There is a difference in anatomy. Would they be considered the same species or two separate species? How about the Great Dane and a Chihuahua both different anatomy, would they be different species or the same?

TWM said; So a gradually created new creature would appear on the fossil record 1% formed gradually increasing till 100% formed over millions of years alongside multiply rejected variations.
They did. 95 % of all living creatures are now extinct.
The fossil record contains zero intermediate fossils or rejected intermediates. Every creature disappears as it appears on the fossil record no transition whatsoever.
Every fossil found was a intermediate. You are an intermediate human. How many fossils of the billions of human which have roamed the earth the past 5 million years have you found? You do realize that biological organisms decay and disintegrate after death. Open a 200 year old grave and you'll find "nothing". Everything has been recycled and some of your molecules may reside in the rose growing above your grave.
161 years after Darwin published ‘Origin of Species’ we can conclude that what gradual creation theory demanded was missing because Darwin’s theory was wrong and the fossils were right.
The remaining fossil are right and clearly show a gradual morphology. We can conclude that Darwin was fundamentally correct in spite of the lack of modern excavation equipment and knowledge of biology itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

.......... we should be tripping over transitional fossils, but there are none to trip over.
And where and how deep in the earth do you expect to find transitional fossils? You seem to have absolutely no idea about paleontology.
Use of all these techniques has enabled paleontologists to discover much of the evolutionary history of life, almost all the way back to when Earth became capable of supporting life, about 3.8 billion years ago. As knowledge has increased, paleontology has developed specialised sub-divisions, some of which focus on different types of fossil organisms while others study ecology and environmental history, such as ancient climates.
A paleontologist at work at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

Have you ever found a fossil? If so, how old was it?

Body fossils and trace fossils are the principal types of evidence about ancient life, and geochemical evidence has helped to decipher the evolution of life before there were organisms large enough to leave body fossils. Estimating the dates of these remains is essential but difficult: sometimes adjacent rock layers allow radiometric dating, which provides absolute dates that are accurate to within 0.5%, but more often paleontologists have to rely on relative dating by solving the "jigsaw puzzles" of biostratigraphy (arrangement of rock layers from youngest to oldest). Classifying ancient organisms is also difficult, as many do not fit well into the Linnaean taxonomy classifying living organisms, and paleontologists more often use cladistics to draw up evolutionary "family trees".

The final quarter of the 20th century saw the development of molecular phylogenetics, which investigates how closely organisms are related by measuring the similarity of the DNA in their genomes. Molecular phylogenetics has also been used to estimate the dates when species diverged, but there is controversy about the reliability of the molecular clock on which such estimates depend.

If TOE is true …


There is no true Theory of Everything yet. And even then it has very little to do with anthropology.

A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

I have a feeling that you are trying to address “abiogenesis”, which is the emergence of living biology from mineral chemistry. You may want to watch this excellent lecture by Robert Hazen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuteon-8Wt4&t=24s

 

 

 

 

TWM said; There is no evidence in the fossil record that proves man evolved from a common ancestor that was shared with chimpanzees.
There most certainly is. I have posted it before , but I won't let you ignore it, so I'll post it again. Pay attention!

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes by Alec MacAndrew

Introduction All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2.

Conclusion The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor’s chromosomes is overwhelming.


http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Reply To: Natural Selection is Teleological = Therefore Self-Contradicting
Natural Selection does not serve a purpose except "affording" the better adapted organism a survival advantage. "Selection" in this context has nothing to do with purposeful selection of beneficial traits. Natural selection is a probabilistic mathematical process and as such is very much self-reinforcing over time, instead of self-contradicting.

Natural Selection, noun

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural_selection
@towerwatchmanParticipant . #330053

Your ‘science free’ response to a science topic was a personal testimonial, containing nothing of science.

Why the fallacy. Red herring = the topic is not whether NS exists or not but that if it did it is teleological.

But I am curious, you state that NS has been observed multiple times, but failed to post about. Could you please point to NS in action today.


My testimonial was about our perceptions. I wonder if you’ve ever thought about where your perceptions and biases comes from? You might give it a try.

Then you seem to contradict t yourself - “it’s not about whether Natural Selection has been observed” Followed by a challenge to provide some examples. Your’s is a hollow challenge made for effect - not in the interest of learning. I can say this because all you need to do is Google the term and a flood of evidence on every level from bones, to DNA, appears for your personal edification. You choose to play stupid, as though that doesn’t information exist. What can we infer from your obvious disinterest to investigate your own beliefs, that’s disingenuous game playing.

Also the term “Transitional Fossil” is a bit of a misnomer because creatures are always changing, they are always transitioning from something towards some towards something else, since the environment keeps changing and evolution is all about keep up with the environment.


pssst, though if you wanted to learn I’ve got a collection of fascinating video to help you understanding, what you are currently missing about his ‘debate’:

An index of this collection of my favorite YouTube videos dedicated to a better appreciation of Earth’s pageant of evolution to date:

September 30, 2019
Martin Smith - Origins Ecdysozoan Body Plans - What a scientist sounds like.

September 26, 2019
Keith Peterson - Cambrian - Molecular Clock - What a scientist sounds like.

September 23, 2019
Diego Garcia-Bellido - Animal Dawn - What a scientist sounds like.

September 21, 2019
Jackson Wheat - Cambrian “Explosion” - What a science communicator sounds like

September 19, 2019
Religious Thinking v. Scientific Thinking

September 12, 2019
Prof. Christopher White - Historical Geology - What a Professor sounds like.

September 11, 2019
Liu, Carbone, Brasier, Corfield, Wood - Ediacaran Marine Ecosystem - What scientists sound like.

September 9, 2019
Mary L. Droser - Ediacara Biota - What a scientist sounds like.

September 8, 2019
Murray Gingras - 585 MYA ani mal tracks - What a scientist sounds like

August 31, 2019
Pageant of Evolution (3), Earth’s story in 24 hours.
{Four Corner’s Free Press column}

August 30, 2019
Diary 8/30/2019 - Life happens.

August 24, 2019
Jeff Gee, Joanna Haigh - Earth’s Magnetic Force Field - What a scientist sounds like

August 23, 2019
David Bercovici - Origin of Plate Tectonics - What a scientist sounds like.

August 22, 2019
Caroline Beghein - Tectonics to Deep Earth Dynamics - What a scientist sounds like

August 20, 2019
Jason Morgan - history of plate tectonics - What a scientist sounds like

August 19, 2019
Plate Tectonics and Life - What Scientists Sound Like

August 17, 2019
Paul Hoffman - Snowball Earth explained - What a scientist sounds like.

August 14, 2019
Pageant of Evolution (2), geological rearranging.
{Four Corner’s Free Press column}

August 12, 2019
Diary August 11, 2019 - Defeated? What’s that mean?

August 10, 2019
Michael Russell - Emergence, serpentinization engine, electron exchange - What a scientist sounds like.

August 7, 2019
Jack Szostak - Origins, geochemistry to biochemistry - What a scientist sounds like.

August 4, 2019
Robert Hazen - Origins, mineral evolution - What a scientist sounds like.

August 2, 2019
Pageant of Evolution (1), the warm up.
{Four Corner’s Free Press column}

July 29, 2019
David Attenborough communicator extraordinaire - Life on Earth, Living Planet

July 29, 2019
Ben Burger, Rocks of Utah - geology videos - What a scientist sounds like.

July 22, 2019
James Sadd, Earth Revealed - video geology course - What a scientist sounds like.

July 20, 2019
Nick Zentner’s Geology Video Collection - Washington state - What a scientist sounds like.

July 3, 2019
Wayne Ranney’s Geology Video Collection - Colorado Plateau Evolution - What a scientist sounds like.

August 31, 2019
Diary July 31, 2019 - About this pageant of evolution.

For the links: https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/12/pageant-of-earth-evolution-1.html