Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 23 of 165 (688818)
01-25-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bolder-dash
01-25-2013 12:15 PM


Re: The story is not complete.
I could think of hundreds of examples of this.
Oh, good. If you would, please, list about 25 of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-25-2013 12:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 24 of 165 (688819)
01-25-2013 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by petrophysics1
01-25-2013 4:46 PM


Re: Interesting Theory
Do I have This theory correct?
So if there is only one choice to be made than sexual selection selects the only one available, while, if there are several to select from then sexual selection selects the most desirable?
Makes sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by petrophysics1, posted 01-25-2013 4:46 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 26 of 165 (688871)
01-26-2013 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Bolder-dash
01-25-2013 1:07 PM


Re: The story is not complete.
Your argument is circular. You can claim that any trait which is better suited for fitness will get passed on, but then if one asks why peacock trains would get passed on, you will say, well, because obviously it must be better suited for fitness.
No. Circular is saying the bible is god's word cause he said so in the bible. That is circular.
What is presented here is an attribute followed by an example.
- better suited for fitness will get passed on
Q: Why are peacock's trains passed on?
A: We just covered that. You need to pay attention.
Or, are you unable to comprehend without undue elaboration?
A: Well, the more attractive train gives more breeding opportunities thus producing more offspring which inherit the attractive train. Since producing more offspring is, by definition, better fitness, the cock's train is said to enhance that fitness in the population.
The only thing circular here is that little cog in your brain spinning trying to make sense of a most simple concept.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-25-2013 1:07 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-26-2013 9:55 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 33 of 165 (688907)
01-26-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Bolder-dash
01-26-2013 9:55 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
I see AZ, so any traits which are prevalent in a population, are by definition examples of better fitness which have been passed on. I get it, I get it.
Like cancer, and cystic fibrosis, and aging... Cool theory.
Here you are trying to argue against evolution and you do not know what "fitness" means?
In your mind what does "fitness" in an evolutionary sense mean?
Let me give you a hint. Late stage diseases and aging have no impact on fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-26-2013 9:55 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 165 (688908)
01-26-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Bolder-dash
01-26-2013 10:25 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
He is convinced that the definition of a better fitness trait is one that gets passed on through generations.
If you knew what "fitness" meant you would know this is not anything close to what I said.
Or, do you know but choose to lie?
Ignorant or lying, which is it?
Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-26-2013 10:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 40 of 165 (688956)
01-26-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bolder-dash
01-26-2013 7:45 PM


What is the evolutionary advantage of a big full bushy beard covering up a man's entire face?
So, all attributes in a phenotype must have an evolutionary advantage or they would not be there? You believe this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-26-2013 7:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 45 of 165 (688961)
01-26-2013 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Bolder-dash
01-26-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Is fitness only fitness when you say it its?
Sometimes its important to point out how inconsistent your sides ideas are ...
Care to give us an example of this inconsistency? Not one based on your misunderstandings, which are numerous, but here's hoping you can find something and then we can tell you how and why you are wrong ... again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-26-2013 10:35 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 62 of 165 (689110)
01-28-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Bolder-dash
01-27-2013 9:57 PM


Hey Pebbles, you just love to twist everything sideways, don't you.
. . . men prefer dainty woman with small noses, woman exist in all sizes roughly the same anyway, so natural selection doesn't work?
Of course you knew that men's preferences come in all shapes and sizes also, right? But allowing this would not further your game. After all, you are not here to discuss or argue or (heaven forbid) learn. You are here to inflame. You're a troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-27-2013 9:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 68 of 165 (689155)
01-28-2013 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Arriba
01-28-2013 1:08 PM


Re: The story is not complete.
Natural selection is, at best, a tautology. Anyone can state that the fittest will survive as long as you can define what "fit" means after you know who does and does not survive.
Again, like Bolder-dash, someone comes in here to do battle with evolution not knowing what it is or how it works.
Arriba,
"Fit" has a very specific definition in evolution. It is not "defined" or "determined" after the fact. The individual, the whole individual, is determined to be "fit" to some degree or "not-fit". One either matches the definition or one does not.
Phenotypic traits have no "fitness." They are enhancers to fitness to some degree or detractors to fitness to some degree or totally neutral to fitness. Some positive traits have a greater positive effect on fitness than others and some negative traits have a greater negative effect than others.
Once you understand what "fitness" means, combined with genetics, then you will understand why strongly positive traits must expand in the population and why strongly negative traits must disappear from the population.
You hear biologists argue over where on the sliding scale of fitness a trait may impact the individual and the views are so different you figure they don't know what they are talking about, when in fact it is you who does not know what the biologists are talking about since you have no idea of the concepts being discussed.
In science, especially biology, there are always studies showing this and counter-studies showing that. Two items: peer review and time. It often takes many studies, many reviews and much time for the facts to reveal themselves. In the case of evolution, the various forms of natural selection and the genetics that underpin it all, there is not longer any doubt.
Just because there is room to argue the details does not diminish the efficacy of the theory.
You are trying to fight against proven reality with your brain tied behind your back.
Go find out what "fitness" actually means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Arriba, posted 01-28-2013 1:08 PM Arriba has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 85 of 165 (689304)
01-29-2013 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:24 AM


some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them
Actually, yes you are, except for the descended part. You seem to have gotten stuck and missed the evolution train.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 88 of 165 (689312)
01-29-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Arriba
01-29-2013 11:19 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
That means that 98.52 percent of people who test positive for HIV using this test really don't have the disease - and this is with a test that is 99.5 percent accurate!
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
What you, purposefully, miss is that of all the people who take the test 99.5% of them get a result that is correct.
You twist and turn the numbers to show a failure that really isn't there. And you do the same with your analysis of selection. Your statistics, Mr. I-know-all-science-is-wrong, are as bogus as your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Arriba, posted 01-29-2013 11:19 AM Arriba has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Arriba, posted 02-01-2013 9:51 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 99 of 165 (689409)
01-30-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Bolder-dash
01-30-2013 11:15 AM


Traits in your world come about by accident and then spread simply as a result of better survival.
Says who? You?
Who says traits spread because of survival? And who cares since survival is not the key? What is the key? You still have not learned the concept.
So when we talk about traits like beards, we must find a reason that they would make better survival, if your theory is to make sense.
First, the theory will never make sense to you since you have no idea what the theory really says.
Second, why do we need to produce a reason for any and all specific traits?
If beards or peacock trains have any effect on (here's that word again) "fitness" (and that involves considerably more than mere survival) then it is in concert with all the other phenotypic traits. Can you grasp that simple concept? What level of effect does any specific trait have on the overall "fitness" of the individual? Can you say?
You cannot grasp the concept but you can grasp your strawman and think you know something. It is not bad enough to not know, you make no effort to know even when the concept is handed to you. You do not want to know.
So why are you in this discussion? To battle against something of which you are and want to remain totally ignorant? Rather foolish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-30-2013 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 115 of 165 (689629)
02-01-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Arriba
02-01-2013 9:51 AM


Re: The story is not complete.
we are saying that only one person took the exam and got a positive result. We then took a calculator and worked out the likelihood that this positive result was false and got a number well over 90 percent.
This is exactly the thing I was speaking about. You invent a scenario that you can twist to falsely invent a failure that is not there just like every mathematical idiot without a viable argument is want to do.
Take 100,000 people, give them the test. How many received a correct result? Regardless of your attempts to lie with numbers, in this case, that is the only statistic that matters.
Take 1 person, give them the test. The test comes up negative. Even without any mathematical smoke and mirrors I can show that in this case the test had a 100% accuracy. Useful isn't it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Arriba, posted 02-01-2013 9:51 AM Arriba has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 142 of 165 (690617)
02-14-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Arriba
02-14-2013 2:59 PM


Re: The story is not complete.
But how do we know test B is accurate? I suppose you tested that test against test C ...
No, you test it against a known population and a control group to see if it accurately picks up positive and negative results.
We can imagine a researcher who is investigating some 300 medications to see which ones are effective against a certain ailment. In reality none of them are effective. Yet he will still find that, on average, 15 will reach a 95 percent confidence level on by chance alone.
And you think the researcher is unaware of this and will not run the same battery of tests, especially on the 15, an additional thousand times to tease out chance?
You don't know much about clinical testing do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Arriba, posted 02-14-2013 2:59 PM Arriba has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 144 of 165 (690619)
02-14-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Arriba
02-14-2013 3:00 PM


Re: And May God Have Mercy On Your Soul
Now according to your faith in neo-Darwinism this must somehow not be deleterious because it is universal in the gene pool. I should very much like to hear your explanation as to why that is
We don't know. The same for humans by the way. We cannot synthesize C either.
Couldn't have been too deleterious since both species are still here. And there may be a counter balancing advantage we have yet to discover.
So there is a hole in our knowledge. So you think all of evolution fails because, unlike religion, science does not know everything? You stuff your god into that hole? One holey god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Arriba, posted 02-14-2013 3:00 PM Arriba has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024