Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 196 of 302 (537325)
11-28-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 5:59 AM


Re: Back to Basics
DrAdequate writes:
That's still what it means.
The finch species under discussion was, patently, evolving.
What did they evolve into?
and why did the research of Peter Grant and Lisle Gibbs see a reversal of that 'evolution' when the climate changed. They found that the beaks of later generations changed again and again going from large beaks to small depending on the climate. And also, why did they see that some of the different 'species' could interbreed and produce offspring?? That surely indicates that they were still the same species even though there were observable changes.
the finches were still finches weren't they?
DrAdequate writes:
Evolution is any heritable change to a lineage.
but surely you can see how this is quite different from Darwin who went beyond small observable changes. He wrote that all the millions of species alive were the descendants of just a few creatures. He said they slowly evolved by extremely slight modifications.
you are speaking about one very small part of a bigger picture. Creationists are looking at the bigger picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 7:28 AM Peg has replied
 Message 208 by lyx2no, posted 11-28-2009 8:15 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 8:44 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(3)
Message 197 of 302 (537326)
11-28-2009 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 6:17 AM


Re: Back to Basics
we usually have fairly civil discussions here and it makes evc worth coming back to
please dont throw a spanner in the works by being rude
We dont all agree, thats what makes this board work...but it wont work if it becomes a catfight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:17 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:48 AM Peg has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 198 of 302 (537327)
11-28-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:43 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Yes, I agree. Only Dr A never employs a strategy of manners and decency. He makes it a habit of jumping into conversation he is not even involved in and throwing in his one line insults which never add to any discussions. I believe he has even been warned about this in other threads but he gets doing it anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:43 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 199 of 302 (537328)
11-28-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wounded King
11-28-2009 6:20 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Wounded King writes:
They do do this Peg, it is called 'adaptive evolution'
Ok. This is a part of Darwins theory of slow, adaptive evolution yes?
What do you say about the newer theory ofpunctuated equilibrium?
Im sure i dont need to explain it to you but just to check that i have the right idea, its the sudden jump into new species rather then the very slow process of adaptive evolution. And it believe those who support it use the fossil record as a basis for their theory???
Wounded King writes:
I would suggest that most de novo mutations should be considered 'neutral evolution' when they first arise, it is the following spread of specific mutations through the population by natural selection that constitutes adaptive evolution.
can I ask what you consider to be the 'specific mutations' that spread thru a population? What sort of mutation are you talking about here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2009 6:20 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 7:00 AM Peg has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 200 of 302 (537329)
11-28-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 6:17 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Man what a dimwit you are. You interpreted that entire post to be a parody of an argument an evolutionist would make.
No, I interpreted it as not relating to Peg's post, or to any conceivable evolutionist reply to Peg's post.
Which is what I said.
Hahaha
It was an exaggeration of the exact issues that an evolutionist would NEVER address you complete fool! You don't even know how to make a proper insult you twit! At least you are UNINTENTIONALLY funny! ha ha ha...
If you wish to pretend that there are "issues that an evolutionist would NEVER address" then I await your further elucidation of this point with a mixture of interest, pity, and contempt.
But if, as I suspect, this nonsense has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, then I suggest that you start another one.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:17 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 201 of 302 (537330)
11-28-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 6:48 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Bolder-dash writes:
Yes, I agree. Only Dr A never employs a strategy of manners and decency. He makes it a habit of jumping into conversation he is not even involved in and throwing in his one line insults which never add to any discussions. I believe he has even been warned about this in other threads but he gets doing it anyway.
ok, well dont imitate his bad example then lol
i know the tendency is to bite back and sometimes i do this myself, (apologies to granny magda) but that only adds to the problem and it doesnt make for good discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 7:49 AM Peg has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 202 of 302 (537331)
11-28-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:52 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Im sure i dont need to explain it to you but just to check that i have the right idea, its the sudden jump into new species rather then the very slow process of adaptive evolution.
* sigh *
No, you don't have the right idea.
Punctuated equilibrium is the notion that, as Darwin put it:
The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:52 AM Peg has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 203 of 302 (537333)
11-28-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Admin
11-28-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Ok, Percy, let me say this for the 5th(?) time, as perhaps one of the times you will actually hear it. I had ABSOLUTELY NO desire to talk of natural selection as it relates to some generic concept that means nothing in terms of evolution-I had every intention to discuss NS as it relates to EVOLUTION!
Why do you continue to ignore this fact? This is moderation?
Should I not be allowed to decide for my self what I was asking for, especially when I wrote very specifically what it was I was asking for three times? NS as it relates to EVOLUTION. Please read that sentence again-Natural Selection as it relates to Evolution. Please address why you continue to fail to see the connection between NS and EVOLUTIONARY Change, as opposed to whatever the heck you want to call NS which does not involve evolutionary change.
I am completely flabbergasted that you continue to ignore this very obvious very deliberate point.
Do I need to start another thread which says that when I am talking about how NS can work with evolution, I want to discuss the tools it uses to work with evolution, because I am interested in talking about how it works WITH evolution?
This is like discussing with small children, hardly worthy of the intellectual powers of this website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 11-28-2009 6:37 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Admin, posted 11-28-2009 8:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 204 of 302 (537336)
11-28-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Admin
11-28-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Gee, Percy, I guess if your contention is that every time two reproductive organisms have sex, and they produce an offspring, that this is evolution-I think you aren't going to have a lot of creationist who disagree with you.
You have just convinced me-I know animals have sex, and I know they have offspring, so evolution must be true.
Do you think that perhaps one reason the board is so dominated with evolutionists is because of the utterly contemptuous and condescending manner in which anyone who disagrees with you is treated?
You claim to be a moderator and you come on here to tell me what I don't understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 11-28-2009 6:37 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 205 of 302 (537337)
11-28-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Back to Basics
What did they evolve into?
A population with an average small beak size evolved into a population with an average large beak size.
and why did the research of Peter Grant and Lisle Gibbs see a reversal of that 'evolution' when the climate changed. They found that the beaks of later generations changed again and again going from large beaks to small depending on the climate.
Of course. Evolution doesn't suddenly throw its hands up and say: "Oh, the climate's just dicking me about now, why can't it make up its mind? ... I give up."
the finches were still finches weren't they?
Of course. But as I've pointed out, "evolution" does not mean "that degree of evolution that creationists deny is possible".
The fact that the observations don't contradict creationist dogma doesn't stop them from being observations of evolution.
but surely you can see how this is quite different from Darwin who went beyond small observable changes. He wrote that all the millions of species alive were the descendants of just a few creatures.
He did. That's the principle of common descent, which is what creationists actually object to.
He said they slowly evolved by extremely slight modifications.
And that's the (his first sketch of) the theory of evolution, which is another thing again.
you are speaking about one very small part of a bigger picture. Creationists are looking at the bigger picture.
Well, let's run with your analogy. Suppose there was some bunch of people who denied that it was possible for one human (in this case, Michaelangelo) to have painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel --- the big picture. Well, we could debate that. But suppose they wanted to redefine the word "painting" to mean "painting the ceiling of the Sistine chapel". So then they go around saying "Painting is impossible". Then when I pick up a paintbrush and apply paint to a surface, and say: "Look, painting!" they complain that that's not what they meant. Well, it may not be, but it's what "painting" means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:40 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2009 8:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 206 of 302 (537339)
11-28-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:55 AM


Re: Back to Basics
You know Peg, one of the reasons why evolutionist have been able to stifle the conversation, and argument in their favor regarding schools and other avenues for learning more about our existence, is by doing exactly what they do on this site. They attempt to belittle and characterize anyone who disagrees with their position as being whacky, uneducated, brain-washed religious zealots, or people with their heads in the sand. They do it here on this forum (which in actuality is a evolutionist website-which allows creationists to participate, and they do it regularly to you.
Anytime they are challenged to defend anything, they throw out the same card time and time again, their ace in the hole-"Oh, you just don't understand science." If the people who disagree with them happen to also be scientists, the fact that they disagree with them automatically disqualifies their credentials, because by disagreeing with them, they are creationists, so their minds must be clouded. if you said someone's mind is clouded because they are atheist however,they will just go right back to the same circular argument.
Percy has done it right here again, instead of moderating this thread, he is trying to claim I don't understand science because I disagree with the concept that sexual reproduction equates to evolution.
So, to take your point, "don't bite back"-sorry I have to respectfully disagree to a point. Sometimes biting back a little is required. There have been fifty posts on this thread alone dedicated to people simply saying-Oh we are right, you don't understand what you are talking about, ended with a quip little insult at the end.
I have read plenty of posts on this forum, and not all of these people are the geniuses they proclaim themselves to be (Dr.A). I am not intimidated by them. Don't always just let people walk all over you. In my opinion the intellectual community that also happens to see there are gaping holes in this theory could do with a bit more biting back at times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:25 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 211 by lyx2no, posted 11-28-2009 8:29 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 212 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 10:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 207 of 302 (537340)
11-28-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Back to Basics
DrAdequate writes:
A population with an average small beak size evolved into a population with an average large beak size.
right
so no new species evolved...they were still finches.
DrAdequate writes:
"evolution" does not mean "that degree of evolution that creationists deny is possible".
The fact that the observations don't contradict creationist dogma doesn't stop them from being observations of evolution.
this is just moving the goalposts. What really was happening to the finches is that they were adapting to change. Like animals who loose their winter coat in summer.
But if you want to call it evolution, then call it evolution. I believe it whole heartedly.
Dr Adequate writes:
He did. That's the principle of common descent, which is what creationists actually object to.
And that's the (his first sketch of) the theory of evolution, which is another thing again.
I take it that this is how the ToE has changed greatly over the years.
You've separated 'descent from a common ancestor' and the 'ToE' as if they are two different things.
in a few words, please explain the difference between:
'common descent'
'the theory of evolution'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 8:54 AM Peg has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 208 of 302 (537344)
11-28-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:40 AM


Take a Ride
Hi Peg
What did they evolve into?
Evolution is the process not the product. Have one of your friends take a walk from Perth to Darwin to Brisbane to Adelaide to Perth. While she does that, you get yourself a 1,000,000:1 scale map of Australia and mark it with a pin every sixty seconds. You will deny walking before the Sun goes down.
AbE;
Creationists are looking at the bigger picture.
Well, don't.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:40 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(3)
Message 209 of 302 (537346)
11-28-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Bolder-dash writes:
They attempt to belittle and characterize anyone who disagrees with their position as being whacky, uneducated, brain-washed religious zealots, or people with their heads in the sand.
there are just as many creationists who to the same to them. We do not believe in the very thing they spend their lives researching and working at...you cant blame them for accusing us of being wacky, brainwashed, religous zealots.
But they dont 'all' act this way and some of them are very reasonable and provide some good information. Now while i'll never subscribe to evolution, and they'll never subscribe to creation, the purpose of debate is just that...its for both sides to present the reasons for their position. It doesnt mean that anyone wins the debate...that would only happen if I became an evolutionist convert, or one of them became a creationist convert.
Bolder-dash writes:
There have been fifty posts on this thread alone dedicated to people simply saying-Oh we are right, you don't understand what you are talking about, ended with a quip little insult at the end.
i know and thats the frusting thing...but just remember, they are right and so are you. In terms of what evolution is and what has been written about it, they are right when they tell you about it. But it doesnt mean the 'ToE' is the truth.
You need a thick skin if you are going to put your ideas on the table because there will always be someone who will tell you your idea is wrong. You have to expect that. And you are doing exactly the same thing to them anyway. You are telling them their idea is wrong, so why should you expect them to accept that?
Bolder-Dash writes:
Don't always just let people walk all over you. In my opinion the intellectual community that also happens to see there are gaping holes in this theory could do with a bit more biting back at times.
of course, its ok to bite back so long as you dont throw personal attacks around...remember, its not the person you are biting, its their idea....i can say this from experience because my husband is an evolutionist...if i attacked him, we wouldnt survive for very long.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 7:49 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:29 AM Peg has replied
 Message 223 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:12 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 249 by Parasomnium, posted 11-28-2009 6:19 PM Peg has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 210 of 302 (537349)
11-28-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Peg
11-28-2009 8:25 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Now while i'll never subscribe to evolution
Ah, you obviously haven't seen the odds we've given you in the book we're running Tho' to be fair, slevesque is favourite at the moment. Care to place a wager?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:37 AM cavediver 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