Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 121 of 323 (808279)
05-09-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by bluegenes
05-09-2017 2:37 PM


Peppered moths (Biston betularia) and Natural Selection
I suggest everyone takes my approach. Show him some evidence for positive selection, linking to the research, and ask him to give a technical explanation of what's wrong with it:
Let me start with the iconic Peppered Moths then:
quote:
Peppered Moths and Natural Selection: ... Creationists like to twist the truth about this moth, so I will go into both sides here:
(1) Creationist (ICR website) by Dr. John Morris, President of ICR
This is taken directly from the web site:
Here's the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile.
Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees. Soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged. By the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became "Darwin's Missing Evidence"”natural selection in action.
Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited.
Please note that this is a creationist site and they have just said that "This is natural selection in action, but not evolution."
He goes on to imply that this disproves evolution because the moth varieties are not now different species. But lets look at this claim:
natural selectionspeciation
theory testedyesno
theory validatedyesno
theory invalidatednono
Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to invalidate the theory.
Please note how this creationist website shows you exactly how the mechanism of color change in a population works. The moths did not decide to change color: there were existing genetic variations that made one population more able to survive under one condition and the other population more able to survive under a changed condition.
There is more at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection, but this demonstrates that ICR recognizes and accepts natural selection occurring in this case.
So can Davidjay show where the ICR was wrong and why?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 2:37 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 122 of 323 (808291)
05-09-2017 4:31 PM


Coat Color in Rock Pocket Mice
Another example very similar to the peppered moth is melanism (i.e. coat color) in rock pocket mice:
Researchers were able to trace the black coat color to specific mutations:
"We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
Just a moment...
In areas with black lava rocks you find the black pocket mouse. In areas with light brown dirt you find light brown mice. There is free interbreeding between the light brown and black mice, yet you still see this non-random distribution of coat color.
Biologists explain this non-random distribution of coat color as a result of camouflage that protects against predation. This is natural selection. No deities involved, just the consequence of some mice carrying a gene that makes them less noticeable or more noticeable to predators. When they stand out in the environment they are eaten more often so their genes aren't passed on at the same rate.
If Davidjay has another explanation for this non-random distribution of coat color in rock pocket mice, now would be the time to hear it.

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 123 of 323 (808293)
05-09-2017 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Learned behaviour is not added to our genes BREAK THROUGH
But there it is, and we will repeat this GIVEN and principle from basic genetics, that totally destroys evolutionary theory.
You silly little troll. You have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory is, let alone what would destroy it. The theory of evolution is not going to be destroyed by your lies.
The God of Selection does not select beneficial mutations.....
There is no such thing as the god of selection. I realize that religion has addled your brain, but natural selection is just environmental factors sorting which phenotypic variations in a population leave more offspring and which do not.
no learned behaviour passes on to the next generation.
We have already been over this. You really are a broken record, aren't you?
No behaviour changes because of magical mutations.
Pay attention, we have told you numerous time that there is no such thing as magic, therefore there are no "magic" mutations.
Mystery solved, even though its straight forward genetics from Level 1 University studies.
No, for you the mystery remains. Why don't you know even the most rudimentary basic principles of biology and evolution since you claim to have a degree in biology?
Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 124 of 323 (808296)
05-09-2017 7:58 PM


Of Moths, Mice and Men
Well, we've had Oldfield Mice, Peppered Moths, and Pocket Mice, so let's have Men.
Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y
quote:
Our analysis indicates that positive selection on pigmentation variants associated with depigmented hair, skin, and eyes was still ongoing after the time period represented by our archaeological population, 6,500—4,000 y ago. This finding suggests that either the selection pressures that initiated the selective sweep during the Late Pleistocene or early Holocene were still operative or that a new selective environment had arisen in which depigmentation was favored for a different reason.
The high selection coefficients estimated for pigmentation genes HERC2, SLC45A2, and TYR are best understood in the context of estimates obtained for other recently selected loci. Using spatially explicit simulation and approximate Bayesian computation, selection on the LCT -13,910*T allelewhich is strongly associated with lactase persistence in Europeans and southern Asianswas inferred to fall in the range 0.0259—0.0795 and to have begun around 7,500 y ago in the region between the Balkans and central Europe. However, another simulation-based study incorporating latitudinal effects on selection resulted in a lower estimate of S (0.008—0.018). The selective advantage of the G6PD A− and Med deficiency alleles conferring resistance to malaria have been estimated at 0.019—0.048 and 0.014—0.049, respectively, in regions where malaria is endemic (39). These alleles are estimated to have arisen 6,357 y ago and 3,330 y ago. Thus, the estimates of S for the three pigmentation genes examined in this study are comparable to those for the most strongly selected loci in the human genome.
What are your technical objections* to this research, Dave, which tells you how you got your pretty white ass. And you now have made 28 posts without any sign of "logically and systematically" debunking selection.
*Probably that the selection was going on right through the flood and the complete genocide of the population concerned.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 125 of 323 (808334)
05-10-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by bluegenes
05-09-2017 7:58 PM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Blue genes,
Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...
You must show us some men evolving or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women.
But please no more rabbits in a hat. Thanks
David

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 7:58 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Admin, posted 05-10-2017 10:19 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:34 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 143 by bluegenes, posted 05-10-2017 11:38 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 126 of 323 (808341)
05-10-2017 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Hi Davidjay,
Begin discussing your topic or I will drop this thread into summation mode.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:07 AM Admin has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 127 of 323 (808343)
05-10-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Davidjay writes:
Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...
The topic is about natural selection, not missing links. We have now given you two examples of natural selection. Please address them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 128 of 323 (808359)
05-10-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Admin
05-10-2017 10:19 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
I am winning this debate and commenting and answering evolutionists even as they get off topic.... but if this ongoing problem of evolutionists losing needs to be remedied and stopped... thats your choice and your responsibility.
But the God of Selection, and randomness remains dead, and still at random.
Your the one that gave me the insight to start this topic in the first place, so do responmd and defend your position that Selection is not random.
You may proceed.... or you can select a spokesperson from evolutionists to speak for you.
Do you not remember that, you were the one that first starting talking about 'Selection' as if it was a God and that it was not random like mutations.
If you conceed defeat on this topic, so be it. Not a problem, as Selection in all my responses shows that it is not alive and that the environment does not bring on mutations, and does not produce beneficial mutations, and does not produce life and is not a living entity such as in Mother Nature.
Please read and study previous posts of mine, or if you like specify which one was off topic and not dealing with the subject matter or a question posed by a respondant (mainly evolkutionists or maybe all by evolutionists).
Thanks be specific rather than vague and undirected.
Thanks
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Admin, posted 05-10-2017 10:19 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Admin, posted 05-10-2017 11:12 AM Davidjay has replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 323 (808360)
05-10-2017 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:07 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Hi Davidjay,
I'm moderator of this thread, not a participant, but some participants have posted evidence for selection in Message 121 and Message 122. Respond to them if you don't want your thread dropped into summation mode.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:24 AM Admin has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 130 of 323 (808363)
05-10-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Admin
05-10-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
They dont respond to my questions, but you 'force me to respond to their questions'. Interesting moderation or 'unfairness'
I have responded 31 times already, and explained by point 31 times already, nevertheless lets look at your theory that they need their evolution comments answered.....
..... I answered MESSAGE 121, in my response in MESSAGE 125, while answering 124 as well.
Color is not speciation, unless you define color as a new KIND, because evolutionists are so desperate for some kind of proof or missing link.
Please see and study the whole thread concerning.. evolution is racism.... color differences in humans does not mean a new KIND or superior kind has evolved. All colours of humans are the same.
Evolutiuonists teach that different colors are different and are proofs of evolution and speciation. I differ, and your theory causes no end of problems and wars.
Do note that all my threads are consistent and follow consistent principles. Evolutionists switch principles in mid stream to cover up turbulences in their backwash and their innumerable discreptancies......
Moth color change is an adaption, and as we found out on the thread called ... (Ill get that thread HERE for ya)
the environment does not bring on mutations, or change our genome, or DNA...nothing we do changes our behaviours, all instincts and behaviours are GIVEN at Creation, or must be taught into every new generation.
So let me repeat again Percy, Message 125 that answered your 121 forced response that theoretically I must answer..
Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.
Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Admin, posted 05-10-2017 11:12 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 11:25 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 147 by Admin, posted 05-11-2017 8:09 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 131 of 323 (808364)
05-10-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:07 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Davidjay writes:
Do you not remember that, you were the one that first starting talking about 'Selection' as if it was a God and that it was not random like mutations.
We just gave you two examples of natural selection that produce non-random distributions of phenotypes, no gods involved.
Every time you refuse to address those examples you lose the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 132 of 323 (808365)
05-10-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Davidjay writes:
I have responded 31 times already, and explained by point 31 times already, nevertheless lets look at your theory that they need their evolution comments answered.....
In which of those 31 posts do you think you logically and systematically disprove natural selection? I would be happy to respond to any of those posts as long as they contain a logical argument instead of just ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 133 of 323 (808366)
05-10-2017 11:29 AM


A fairly big example of selection
There is an identifiable layer found all around the world; the K/T boundary. It's a really distinct layer, easily visible, with a specific chemical composition. The reason it is pointed out as an example of selection is that there are lots of evidence of specific critters found below the boundary that have never been found above the boundary.
This is selection writ large. Big land dwelling critters that existed before the event that created the layer died.
The fact that it is found world-wide and through chemical analysis can be tied to a specific type event and even to a specific event and that specific types of critters went extinct show that selection is not random.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 134 of 323 (808370)
05-10-2017 11:44 AM


Color is not a new KIND
Whewee the evolutionists are out in force now.......
I repeat... color is not an example of evolution making new species.
Its blatantly obvious to any that have been out in the real world.
Moths changing color is not evolution as evolutionists so demand and try to force down unbelievers throats and eyesockets.
Colors within the genome of humans etc..... is just a recombination of skin tones.... it doesnt make a black person any less or more advanced than a white person.
SEE and study Evolution is a racist doctrine THREAD
Evolutionists you can not have it both ways, and change coats whenever you try and cover up your theory.
Colors changes are not a proof of a new KIND evolving... other wise if you continue with such a unscientific doctrine, then admit that your evolutionary theory does in fact promote racism.
Creationism **** Evolution *****
There I have totally answered question 121, 124, 122, and given whole threads as further evidence..... so readers can search out whether mere color change is evidence for evolutionary developed new KINDS...again

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 11:47 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 12:32 PM Davidjay has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 135 of 323 (808371)
05-10-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
Davidjay writes:
I repeat... color is not an example of evolution making new species.
Speciation is not the topic of this thread. Natural selection is.
This is why your other topics are not promoted, because you refuse to discuss your own topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:44 AM Davidjay 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