Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 11:19 AM
285 online now:
GDR, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 277 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,429 Year: 15,252/29,783 Month: 1,196/1,502 Week: 194/492 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 166 of 350 (347751)
09-09-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 10:52 PM


Re: ANYONE?
Suddenly impatient?

A little less than two hours,

Message 152 of 165
09*08*2006 08:56 PM

Message 157 of 165
09*08*2006 10:52 PM

... when the post that has issued a challenge to you

A Critique of the "Evolution Essay"
Message 1 of 22
06*11*2006 07:59 PM

... to defend your position (and which you still have NOT done) takes 3 months to get an answer.

LOL.

You had my conditions:

Message 154
If you feel you are being ganged up on, then you can ask for it to be moved to the Great Debate.

But you should make some effort to answer the rebuttals that have been posted about your misrepresentations and repeated falsehoods eh?

abe: Just to be clear, what I am talking about is a demonstration of a willingness to debate in good faith, actually dealing with the issues raised, and answering them, rather than continued blind unsupported assertion after blind unsupported assertion -- it's the other half of the equation /abe(1)

And YOU didn't take them up.

Can you tell me why one should 'debate' with a person who has failed to make corrections to something that is an obvious error and fails to acknowledge when they are wrong?

That is not debate in good faith, as no matter what the {other person} says it is ignored.

Enjoy.



(1) - Edited by RAZD, 09*08*2006 10:13 PM -- before your impatient posting

Edited by RAZD, : added abe time to quoted conditions edit.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 167 of 350 (347754)
09-09-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 8:56 PM


Back to the moths and natural selection
... if someone has something about evolution, evidence, pepper moths, natural selection, etc,...

Just one quick yes or no question:

Do you agree that the documented changes in the relative proportions of the {dark\light} variety populations of the peppered moths shows natural selection?

Just a simple yes or no.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 8:56 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 350 (347827)
09-09-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
quote:
I want a real debate, where the debate will be directly about the evidence and what it shows in regards to evolution.

Hi!

I have tried to read through the thread so I hope I don’t just end up restating what has already been said. I’ve mainly three things to add and I hope they can be to some avail.

1. “Evolution” like any word used in a discourse need to be equally defined by all parties if a meaningful exchange of opinion shall be possible. I myself have some difficulty grasping what exactly is contained in the word “macroevolution” that’s not contained in the word evolution. My guess would be that “macroevolution” signifies the transition from one species to another whereas “evolution” signifies changes in the genotype within a species. A species then is defined by common usage as a group of organisms that can naturally interbreed.
2. A proof of this process, i.e. macroevolution, is found in the dog. The pedigrees of dogs are well established and we can trace most of the types back to a proximate common ancestor. We also know that the different types of dogs are a result of selection. So the crucial question is then if this selection has caused different types of dogs to become different species? The answer to that question is yes! There are types of dogs that cannot interbreed due to physiological differences brought about by selection. An example of this would be Grand Danois and Chihuahua.
The fact that different dog types are not colloquially talked about as different species does not change the fact that they, in the biological sense of the word, are.


/jerker
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 8:56 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 6:26 PM jerker77 has responded
 Message 170 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 6:44 PM jerker77 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 169 of 350 (347835)
09-09-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jerker77
09-09-2006 5:57 PM


Evolution ... macro ... micro ... what's the diff?
I’ve mainly three things to add and I hope they can be to some avail.

And the third is ... ? (don't leave us hanging eh?)

Seriously, thanks and welcome to the fray. Your take on the dogs is a little further than most would go. I would rather say they are in the process of transition but that it has not been demonstrated to the level of horse\mule\donkey yet (not that dogs get much opportunity to make those decisions ...)

BUT The issue of dogs is discussed on other threads. See Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution? and Message 11

The issue of micro\macro differences is discussed on other threads. You might be interested in my beginning take on "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? and what I post on Message 180 on that thread.

We'd like to keep this thread focused to a discussion of natural selection and whether the peppered moths are a good example of that.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added hot doggy links (dog on dog)


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 5:57 PM jerker77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 7:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 350 (347842)
09-09-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jerker77
09-09-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
three things to add

It seems like I forgot he third one 

The third point I’d like to make is a more general one. It’s common among creationists to have a far too wide scoop in their approach to the subject. They often want a proof for, say, that I’ve descended from a single cell organism. The problem with this approach is that there is not a single proof for that but a long and often rather technically complicated chain of evidence that is needed to even get half way.

Darwin’s classical theory of evolution is not a proof for my lineage of decent; it’s just a theory that explains changes in phenotypes over time. It does not say that I originate from an ape; it just says that I originate. Once this is established the question “from where?” arise. But this question is a different one! The fact that science can’t give a precise answer to from where I’ve descended does not change the fact that I have!

The logical fallacy creationists commit over and over again is to think evolution as a phenomenon is disproved if every single evolutionary change from one cell organism to mammal can’t be put under their noses.

The question if evolution does occur is easily proved (just take a look at domesticated animals or bacteria!). The question how it has worked its way from the first self replicating molecule to man is partly a puzzle. Sure we have quite a few pieces, DNA, fossils and embryonic development but we don’t have all the data and thus cannot have all the answers.

But the important point is this. If evolution can be established creation is disproved. It doesn’t matter if scientist have got every single branch in the tree of evolution all mixed up. Evolution will still be the correct answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 5:57 PM jerker77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 7:11 PM jerker77 has responded
 Message 173 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 7:52 PM jerker77 has responded

  
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 350 (347844)
09-09-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
09-09-2006 6:26 PM


Re: Evolution ... macro ... micro ... what's the diff?
peppered moths are a good example of that.

My expertise on peppered moths hangs in a doubtful scale but at least I can pass on the information that the example of this classis study is represented in Swedish schoolbooks as well. But the main examples are concerned with bacteria since it’s easier to demonstrate evolution in the making in a classroom setting with a strain of coli bacteria than it is with a population of moths. 


/jerker
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 6:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 172 of 350 (347845)
09-09-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jerker77
09-09-2006 6:44 PM


logical fallacy then topic
If evolution can be established creation is disproved.

Logical fallacy?

There are many creations, many with no problems with evolution (evolution is the mechanism used)

The specifics of literal beliefs that are already invalidated include many things besides the way different kinds of organisms came to be on this particular planet. No world wide flood, an ancient earth, are both facts that some believers have trouble comprehending the significance of.

But not all beliefs are invalidated by these either.

AND again -- this thread is about natural selection of populations of peppered moths ...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 6:44 PM jerker77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 8:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 436 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 173 of 350 (347851)
09-09-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jerker77
09-09-2006 6:44 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
hejsan

I'll just add to what razd wrote.

jerker writes:

If evolution can be established creation is disproved


razd stated it was a logical fallacy, which is correct. the funny thing is that creationists (of the literalist variety) use this very fallacy.

If evolution is falsified it promotes creationism

just because one is proven (or falsified) doesn't make the other automatically right.

it could be that God did create the universe--and thus there is still creation. it could be that God did not create the universe--and evolution could be wrong.

och valkomen till (spelling?) EvC


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 6:44 PM jerker77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 8:33 PM kuresu has responded

    
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 350 (347854)
09-09-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
09-09-2006 7:11 PM


Re: logical fallacy then topic
But not all beliefs are invalidated by these either.

My point was simply that if evolution as a process can be established there is no need for the Deus ex machina of the genesis account to explain how we came into being, and that the detail of a singular example such as that of the mouth varieties doesn’t really matter for the case of evolution as a phenomenon.

If one argues against evolution one most suppose that the shift in the moth population have been brought about by supernatural means and not a gradual change of the phenotype. Now, few would be ready to defend such a position so instead one goes on attacking details in how the research on the moth was carried out. But the details are unimportant, either you have a gradual change or you don’t. If you do it’s just at matter of getting the details right. But if you don’t, well then you got a whole lot of explaining to do.

Yes, I know, there is of cause the third option of migration that presupposes neither evolution nor creation but very intelligent moths!

It was not my intention to raise the question of prima causa! That is, I think we all agree, a question well outside the scoop of evolutionary biology.


/jerker
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 7:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 9:11 PM jerker77 has responded

  
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 350 (347856)
09-09-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by kuresu
09-09-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
just because one is proven (or falsified) doesn't make the other automatically right

Hej hej!

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by “creation”. I was referring to the Genesis account and not a more general idea of a prima causa. In the case of the former we have an either or relationship with Darwinian evolution, i.e., either an instantaneous creation or a gradual formation. You just can’t have both at the same time, in the same manner as you can’t walk fast slowly or talk loud silently. There is just no such thing as instantaneous gradualism!

There are good reason to discard creation as a meaningful ontological concept but Darwin’s theory is not one of them and I believe that this is not the thread they ought to be presented in. *smile*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 7:52 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 9:14 PM jerker77 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 176 of 350 (347858)
09-09-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by jerker77
09-09-2006 8:08 PM


Re: logical fallacy then topic
Yes, I know, there is of cause the third option of migration that presupposes neither evolution nor creation but very intelligent moths!

Careful now, you don't want to anger ... MOTHRA

... of the genesis account ...

We should try to be specific of the types of creationists being discussed.

Biblical literalist young earth creationists (BLYEC's)
(There are some Islamic YEC's and some Jewish YEC's, but not as many as there are christian)

There are also some old earth varieties (OEC's).

BUT: none of the YEC's etc that I know have any problem with natural selection.

That is what makes their position on the peppered moths so curious.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 8:08 PM jerker77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 9:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 436 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 177 of 350 (347859)
09-09-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jerker77
09-09-2006 8:33 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
aha.

I agree with you on genesis being defunct--but watch out. there are two genesis stories of creation. it's only the first that has the seven days. the second one has the infamous "rib" story (origin of women).

sa, var ar lund? (jag can inte stava ret pa svensk, tyvar, men jag hoppas at du forstar vad jag forsokar at tala om)(oh, and my written grammer is pretty bad, too)

oh, it looks like you got quote boxes down, but we do have smilies, such as
:),;),:(,:laugh:,:mad:,:o:,:D, and so forth. check out the smilies legend when you make a post.
just in case you didn't know.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 8:33 PM jerker77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jerker77, posted 09-09-2006 9:38 PM kuresu has responded

    
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 350 (347861)
09-09-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kuresu
09-09-2006 9:14 PM


Re: Challenge, who's up for it?
Holy books just like the moth is subject to evolution, thus the surgery in the elohist account and the more strict six day version of the priestly account.

Indeed, I understand your Swedish and it is not bad at all. Totally intelligible though some spelling errors but not more than my English without Word! Lund is a city in the south-western part of Sweden in Skane. It houses the countries second largest university and has a population of about 100 000. I came here in the mid nineties to study theology and have been here ever since. Totally worth a visit if you ever go to Sweden!


/jerker
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 9:14 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 10:05 PM jerker77 has not yet responded

  
jerker77
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 350 (347862)
09-09-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
09-09-2006 9:11 PM


Re: logical fallacy then topic
We should try to be specific of the types of creationists being discussed.

Thanks for the tip! I’m afraid that the theological technicalities of different creationist movements are quite beyond the horizon even for a Swedish theologian such as me. Here we have liberal deist (50%) atheist (45%) and traditional believers of different denominations account for the rest so the debate tends to be much of an either or here.


/jerker
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 9:11 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 180 of 350 (347865)
09-09-2006 9:54 PM


I just want to say that I will focus more of my attention and posting to the Great Debate between me and Anglagard, so my posting here may be limited or just non existent. I have classes starting soon, so I want to get the Great Debate going and mostly finished while I have the time.

Remember: God loves you! And He's waiting for you to come to Him, don't hold up, come to your Creator soon!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 10:13 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018