Natural Selection's Limitations

NS: Natural Selection My claim was merely that our idea of a 'trait' is subject to interpretation, where biology goes into more complex steps and doesn't recognise 'traits' but what causes them, while we consider things we see a trait and don't think about what goes on in the background. NS doesn't "select" traits as a force, but is merely a concept explaining how certain changes will likely die out. Our interpretation makes NS appear more "in control" than it is as we look to it to explain complexities. I'm not arguing with biology, but rather how one may interpret data to make sense of it, which may in turn create an over-complexity in one's mind.Your first rebuttal is an example of this. Your first example shows a change in traits, with traits being geared towards the colour of beetles. Your example starts with orange beetles, and you seem to be claiming that if it didn't, there would have never been any, and the species would become extinct. This is an assumptoin and not the case with the real-world example I cited in source 1 of my first argument. The dark mice occured not by selective breeding but mutation. There were no dark mice living on the light rock before the environment changed as they would've been caught by predators. The light colour occured due to a mutation in a gene sequence which was favourable for getting past NS. What's more, they didn't change colour completely - their bellies, being that they faced the ground, remained lightly coloured.. My assumption was mostly correct, unless you accept that gain-of-function mutations happen, which is true. This mean traits arise which didn't exist, which means you accept your own resolution as false. The thing I didn't realise is you seem to fully deny your beetles the possibility of changes occurring, ever. You understand that NS only filters out bad mutations (which I added on that this can cause mutation bias in the future, aiding good mutations), so the only thing you're really in disagreement with is mutation itself. The genomes of your dogs don't loose a "long fur" gene, they have their fur genes altered so the growth of fur is limited. Energy and time are naturally part of the DNA of all species. We have genes, but there also exists genes to control those genes, as well as genes to control further mutations, and who knows what else left to discover after only 20 years of research. Gene mutations can be biased as well as recessive (1), NS won't usually act towards getting rid of something unused because there's no effect for NS to act on, and instead it's kept and genetic switches are used to disable functions, so whether loss-of-information mutations are even that frequent is up for debate. Your examples include sexual reproduction, and sexual reproduction is also heavily affected by genes and NS. Animals will instinctively opt for genetic variety, which further increases the changes of the mutations being more random and unlike either parent. These instincts may be exacerbated by NS for the reasons I already highlighted, as the environment and how often it changes can demand more or less evolution through NS. "Yes, mutations through duplication, recombination, etc..." Not true, I covered this. Mutations aren't limited to preexisting information, this is widely known in genetics. Mutations can both be inherited as well as random. You can't deny this without arguing the semantics of what can be considered an additional trait, because the documentary of observed mice fur colour evolution I cited demonstrates this. NS had no reason to keep dark mice before, yet they still arose once again through mutation. It used preexisting genes, which were different or disabled, and there's no way to determine the gene, but by mutating the gene randomly it would eventually pass the NS test. A genome can't possibly store the entire gene pool of it's species somewhere, but what it can do is use other parts of the genetic code to randomly mutate in offspring. You should really explain more why you think limitations in mutation exist.. Mutations alone do produce the traits, but NS plays the critical role of selecting them, and thus influencing the bias of future mutations which can produce more traits, as per your resolution, saying NS with the help of genetic mutations couldn't produce previously nonexistant traits, which I've shown is untrue. All of what I said is important to disproving the resolution. That's what my final opening paragraph further explains. It seems ridiculous to focus on NS when it is so simple and your first argument basically accepted it, so I focused on mutation helping the traits become part of the species. Without the random mutations, evolution would be a board game with no dice. NS is the set of rules for deciding the winner. You defined 'novel structures' as previously nonexistent traits, which again, I've highlighted do occur as the first point of my arguments. With the help of mutation, I've explained how NS is capable of producing traits, and you agree to the trivialness of large or small traits, therefore I've addressed the resolution fully. You're concerned over my focus on mutations, but you agreed it can help the NS role in evolution. I explained how NS also helps affect mutation processes over time. NS plays a role in all parts of evolution, as whatever fails doesn't take part in future mutations, so mutations are mutually aided by NS that took place before it. "I assumed it was understood that this debate was concerning biological organisms not computer simulations" Then you've not paid enough attention to my points or sources explaining how Polyworld works or how NS is merely a process. It's based on biological organisms, and computers have long been used to simulate natural processes. You've not given a reason why behaviour traits can't count. Simulations are imitations of real-world processes and systems. Showing an accurate working simulation of NS, mutations and neural networking show how the real-world processes behave (successfully). I addressed the misunderstandings expressed in your first 'Issue of Gain-of-Information Mutations' paragraph, as you seem to have missed my points binding mutations to natural selection. "I do believe mutations can create new traits within a species, but in none of these observed instances is the theory of evolution helped" The resolution says nothing about "helping" the theory of evolution, the theory of evolution is already a proven fact you've not argued against in this debate. Your resolution only brought the parts NS plays in new traits forming into question. I've made many points binding NS to mutations, which your resolution stated could help NS. Therefore this statement accepts my other points which refute the resolution, with the only point left unaccepted being the binding of NS to mutation, which I hope you address better in the next round.Mutations (causes) happen constantly, NS favors them based on traits (effects) they produce. NS helps favour causes (mutations) based on effects (traits), and future mutations will be based on what was favoured too. This doesn't put the previous causes on a blacklist, but they will be less common. NS has altered all of these things, it depends on traits, traits depend on the mutations, mutations depend on what NS favoured previously, what NS favours depends on traits, etc.. I'm sure I addressed the resolution well, counting the arguments you put forth which focused on the same NS process, which alone is an argument for NS, assuming the rest of evolution works normally. I explained how genetic mutation and NS can result in wide amounts of patterns and why doubts of its extent can be misguided. I've covered different angles and aspects of the processes involved as is within reason and shown there are simpler ways of thinking about the complications you claim exist. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...