|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Did you perhaps get that title from a creationist website? Like this one for example? Peacock tail tale failure - creation.com A very shallow and self-serving article it has to be said. As usual, creationists who pour scorn upon science generally are quite happy to accept any paper that seems to confirm their biases, without the least bit of critical analysis. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi BD, just a brief note. You say;
That is quite a different thing from showing that random mutations slowly drifted through the populations along with every other kind of random mutation, causing the change. and;
It is kind of funny that one would cite a population of people developing a resistance to disease in a few decades as evidence that Darwin's theorized process of slow gradual change, based on random mutations caused these resistances. Darwin never knew about random mutation. It had not been discovered in his day. On the Origin of Species never uses the phrase "random mutation" and when using the word "mutation", Darwin uses it only in a general sense, comparable in meaning to "change" or "variance". Darwin was unaware of the exact cause behind inheritable characteristics and their variation, only that whatever the cause, it s results were guided by natural selection. If you want to insist on a purely "Darwinian" model (i.e. a model that Darwin himself would have put forward during his time), you should not be talking about random mutation, because he would not have recognised the concept. For the record, what ideas Darwin had about heritability and variation were largely wrong. This has been known for decades. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Bolder-dash, you are showing an astonishing capacity for missing the point. Is this really so hard to understand?
So will you now concede that in order to discuss evolution, we need to discuss both {natural selection and random mutation}? I don't think that anyone is disputing that. To discuss evolution as a whole one must discuss both natural selection and random mutation. The point that is being made here is that you didn't start a topic about evolution-as-a-whole. You started a topic about natural selection. Natural selection can be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. Random mutation can also be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. It is necessary to discuss both subsets in order to discuss the whole, but it is not necessary to discuss subset A in order to discuss subset B. Thus, it is not necessary to discuss random mutation in order to discuss natural selection. Got it? In case you still don't see it, consider this. Darwin wrote about natural selection extensively in the Origin, but random mutation had not been discovered. If we must discuss random mutation before we can discuss natural selection, how was Darwin able to write on the subject? How come most of what he did write is still relevant today? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Look, all I'm saying is that you didn't ask about RM. You say;
That is completely false. Please reread my opening post. Okay BD, let's take a look at your OP;
Bolder-dash writes: I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing. I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? I would like to stipulate that talking about bacteria (in any form) does not qualify as any type of test, because ultimately we must be taking sexual reproduction, where choices are being made into account-so bacteria is out. Ok, so what are these tests which prove (or even provide solid evidence for) natural selection is the driver of evolutionary change? I have bolded the references to NS. I would have bolded the references to RM as well, but there aren't any. As written, your OP asks about the role of NS in causing evolutionary change. You make no mention of RM. That is why people are talking about NS and it is why we are surprised at your insistence on talking about RM. Topics here at EvC are deliberately kept tightly focussed. This is done to avoid topic sprawl. Evolution, viewed in its entirety is a big, big subject. Many brilliant people have devoted a lifetime to understanding evolution and still there are countless aspects where we still have much to learn. A thread that took all of evolutionary change as its topic would have no focus. Had you worded your OP to say "I would like to discuss all aspects of evolution; have they been tested?", it would most likely not have been promoted. That's just how things are done around here; we find that tightly focussed topics work better in promoting productive discussion. Hopefully, this might help you understand why so many people here are taking umbrage at what they probably see as an attempt by you to move the goalposts.
I mentioned "evolutioary change" three different times. You mentioned RM zero times. You asked about the role of NS in evolutionary change. That's why you have been getting answers about the role of NS in evolutionary change. It's really not complicated.
Your problem seems to be that I didn't include my entire post in the title of the post. I suppose if one did that, there would be no need for a title, because the post would be the title. My problem is that you didn't ask about the role of RM in evolutionary change. You asked about the role of NS in evolutionary change. Then, you started throwing a tantrum that no-one had addressed RM, the subject you didn't ask about. You didn't ask about genetic drift or the founder effect either; are you going to complain that no-one has addressed them?
Granny writes: I don't think that anyone is disputing that. To discuss evolution as a whole one must discuss both natural selection and random mutation. Bolder-dash writes: So can I now at least pin you down to this point? What, the point that I clearly said no-one was disputing? Given that we've hardly spoken on this thread, you haven't "pinned me down" on anything. I said that evolution, considered in its entirety, includes both NS and RM. It includes much more besides. A cursory glance at any biology text book would be enough to confirm this, so don't you go acting as though you have won some kind of concession here. Evolution involves both natural selection and random mutation. You didn't ask about the whole of evolution though. You asked about the role of NS in evolution. No-one is trying to tell you that you can't ask or talk about RM. What we are telling you is that it's a bit rich to ask a question about NS and then complain that we haven't addressed RM. That makes no sense and only serves to make you look foolish. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Grammar, style. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Peg,
Huntard writes: Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive Peg writes: whats the differnce between this and mutation? When I read that I thought; "Probably in the part of that sentence that Peg left out.". So I went and had a look and sure enough...
Huntard writes: ...and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. I am at a loss as to what you thought to achieve by posting as you just did. Quote mining is like a disease with you guys. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Look, Peg, there it's all very well you taking offence, but the fact of the matter is that you just chose to clip Huntard's quote and in doing so, destroyed its meaning.
Huntard attempted to show that mutation and natural selection are different And he did so in perfectly lucid English. Huntard is writing in his second language and yet he still gets his point across quite nicely. You are reading in your native language and you still don't seem to get it.
his sentence stated that natural selection produces 'inheritable traits' Case in point. That isn't what he said.
My question, which you failed to answer, was what is the difference between these 'inheritable traits' and mutations? The original statement was talking not about the traits themselves or how they originated, but the process by which they are filtered, i.e. natural selection. If you want to know the distinction between an "inherited trait" and a mutation, Percy puts it well in Message 203, but really, there is little difference. RM produces variation in inheritable traits. NS filters those variations within a population, favouring traits that improve the survival/reproductive chances of the organisms within that population. After over eighteen hundred posts on this board, have you really not grasped this? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi BD,
You know, I really think you have a lot of nerve. Why thank you very much, that's the most flattering thing I've heard all week.
First you have tried to say that I asked about natural selection, and NOT evolution. That's because you did ask about NS, not evolution. If you disagree, perhaps you would like to point out exactly where you asked about evolution(as a whole that is). Your OP is perfectly clear;
Bolder-dash writes: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? Your title asks if NS has been verified. Bolder-dash writes: I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing. You have heard that Darwin gave a mechanism for evolution and that it has been tested. This is the only mention you make of evolution without further specifying natural selection.
Bolder-dash writes: I am not so sure that this is true. You have doubts that any such proof has been made. Bolder-dash writes: Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? You ask for evidence that natural selection has verified. Note that this appears to qualify your opening statement.
I would like to stipulate that talking about bacteria (in any form) does not qualify as any type of test, because ultimately we must be taking sexual reproduction, where choices are being made into account-so bacteria is out. You don't want to talk about bacteria. Bolder-dash writes: Ok, so what are these tests which prove (or even provide solid evidence for) natural selection is the driver of evolutionary change? You ask again for evidence that natural selection has been verified. That is your entire OP. It makes no mention of mutation and the only actual questions you ask are specifically about NS.
When I have pointed out to you that I VERY clearly asked about evolution-it is YOU who moves the goalposts by now saying that I never asked about RM! You very clearly asked nothing about evolution in general. The only questions you asked were about NS and its role in evolution. Naturally, everybody has assumed that you wanted to talk about NS.
Then you dig even deeper to say that NO ONE has said I can't talk about RM, when there have been TEN people saying I shouldn't be allowed to talk about RM, and one even reported it to the moderator. *sigh* You are at perfect liberty to propose a new topic about random mutation. People are only reacting the way they are because you asked about NS and then threw a tantrum because nobody answered about RM. You are behaving like a child. If you want to talk about the role of RM in evolution, you will find people happy to do so. What people are not happy to do is allow you to play bait and switch. If you want to talk about RM, propose a new topic.
Meanwhile, very disingenuously many of you have tried to somehow separate the concept of Natural Selection from RM, exact for the fact that no one can show how you can have natural selection work in your evolution theory without them. Actually, it is trivially easy to demonstrate how NS could work without RM. Imagine that instead of mutation being random, it is guided. Each mutation is personally shaped by the guiding hand of whatever god you happen to favour. This direction is essentially undetectable, but it is enough to produce variation in inheritable characteristics. NS would then go on to act upon these variations, filtering out the harmful changes and leaving the useful ones.
It must be very convenient for you evolutionists, you get to tell me what I can talk about, you get to tell me what I said, and you get to be moderated by another evolutionist... I'm not interested in your whining. If you think the game is fixed, don't play. Otherwise, man up and accept that NS and RM are separate processes. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024