Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2018 2:57 AM
253 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 250 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 838,661 Year: 13,484/29,783 Month: 930/1,576 Week: 142/303 Day: 2/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 226 of 302 (537392)
11-28-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 9:52 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Bolder-dash, The Theory of Evolution is not "my" theory. I am a physicist/mathematician who specialises in relativity, cosmology, string theory and the like. However, as a scientist, I am suffciently familiar with evolutionary science to recognise how the ToE and common descent fits the available evidence sufficiently well for me to regard it as close to fact; in the same way that I regard Special Relativity as close to fact. This isn't out of any pre-conceived ideas or (anti)religious motivation. I was an evangelical Christian for many many years, and a creationist for a short while. I could not hold to creationism as the intellectual suicide it demanded was far too high a price to pay.

I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.

This leaves you with the simple choice - either you are wrong, or the entire world-wide a-religious community of scientists is deluded or involved in the world's largest conspiracy. And I should add that the vast majority of the world's religious scientists also have exactly the same opinion regarding the ToE, including many of my envangelical Christian friends. So they too would have to be in on this conspiracy...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 9:52 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:36 AM cavediver has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 227 of 302 (537393)
11-28-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Exactly how many posts in this thread can you read that refer to the topic?

After you can answer that question, then perhaps you can tell me how worthwhile the forum is, and explain to me how its a debate, as opposed to a trial where the plaintive is also the judge, the jury , and the bailiff. Enjoy your flagellation. I think I will stick to sites that actually have a real moderator for now.

Or even no moderator would be an improvement.

If this means that you're going to take your ball and go home, then goodbye.

I should still advise you to learn the meaning of the words that you're using if you ever wish to engage in any further debate on this topic.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:12 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 228 of 302 (537394)
11-28-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 8:55 AM


Re: Back to Basics
* sigh *

We're not talking about two different species.

Has speciation occurred in Galapogos finches or not? Or has it been observed anywhere for that matter? I have info on Grenish Warblers and peppered moths and I am not convinced that either one is truely speciation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 8:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 11:02 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:26 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 229 of 302 (537395)
11-28-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by cavediver
11-28-2009 10:18 AM


Re: Back to Basics
I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution.

Simon Conway Morris...

Oops, I win. Gee that didn't take long at all.

Care to try your luck at another sport you are better equipped for? Arm wrestling?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 10:18 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 10:43 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 230 of 302 (537396)
11-28-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 10:20 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Further debate would imply that you actually debated on this topic. I see no evidence of that.

Of course your criteria for evidence is obviously much lower than mine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 11:10 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 231 of 302 (537398)
11-28-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Cavediver writes:

I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution.

Simon Conway Morris...

Christian *AND* scientist who accepts the ToE

You're just deternmined to be an epic failure here, aren't you?

Admittedly, Morris has some fanciful ideas about higher purpose seen in evolution and the Universe at large, but so do I every other Thursday...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:36 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:59 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 232 of 302 (537400)
11-28-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by cavediver
11-28-2009 10:43 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Oh, you mean they are not allowed to have gone to church? So they have to believe that some things can't be accounted for by a materialistic account of the world and also be atheist?

You got me there. I guess no one is going to meet that challenge. You are good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 10:43 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 11:13 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 233 of 302 (537402)
11-28-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by herebedragons
11-28-2009 10:28 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Has speciation occurred in Galapogos finches or not?

Of course --- but not during the few years that anyone has been looking, and no-one has ever claimed that it has.

Or has it been observed anywhere for that matter?

Yes. But don't just take my word for it.

For example, the CreationWiki states:

Speciation, or the formation of a new species, does occur with some regularity.

And the foremost creationist site on the internet, Answers in Genesis, states:

New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

When creationists have so far given up on denying speciation that they're now claiming it as "an important part of the creationist model", then I believe that the debate is over.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by herebedragons, posted 11-28-2009 10:28 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 234 of 302 (537403)
11-28-2009 11:09 AM


Moderator Warning
Everyone:

Please confine your discussion and comments to the topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 11:16 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 235 of 302 (537404)
11-28-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Further debate would imply that you actually debated on this topic. I see no evidence of that.

You're good at not seeing evidence for reality.

Er ... should I congratulate you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:38 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 993 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 236 of 302 (537405)
11-28-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Oh, you mean they are not allowed to have gone to church?

Yet, 40% of scientists in America believe in some form of theistic evolution thus believing both in God and evolution. 55% believe in naturalistic evolution with no influence by God and less than 5% believe in Creationism. (source: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists

Yeah, your argument holds water. Like a sieve.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:59 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 11:37 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 237 of 302 (537406)
11-28-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 9:36 AM


Evo with No RM
This is an interesting thought that I hadn't seen before. Of course, evolution can go on with out any RM but (a big but) for how long in what way?

NS is selecting out specific patterns. Eventually you'd end up with a very, very restricted gene pool if no new variation is being added. All this would do is hasten the time when the final selection is made and the species goes extinct. Which is perfectly good evolution too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 9:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 238 of 302 (537407)
11-28-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Admin
11-28-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Moderator Warning
Please confine your discussion and comments to the topic.

Oh, that thing.

What happened to that?

We were talking about moths and guppies and finches and actual observations of the law of natural selection actually happening, which seemed like splendid ways to test the law of natural selection, and then somehow the stupid bomb exploded.

---

P.S: My previous post was posted after your warning, but I started posting it before I'd read it, and so it was not intended to be in defiance of your fiat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Admin, posted 11-28-2009 11:09 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 239 of 302 (537410)
11-28-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Arphy
11-27-2009 11:53 PM


Re: Back to Basics - so what do you want?
Hi Arphy, thanks for trying to arbitrate, we'll see if Bolder-dash takes it in.

Isn't "Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation." really just a definition of Natural selection? I mean, this doesn't really make make any reference to variation or mutations at all? What is the difference between your definition for evolution and your definition for NS "Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations."? It seems to say the same thing except using different words. I mean "change in frequencey" is basically natural selection. Isn't it?

The change in frequency of hereditary traits is the result of natural selection, of new mutations, of genetic drift, of random disasters, etc. When this change is observed we can say evolution has occurred.

Natural selection is one of the processes that cause evolution, and it specifically addresses survival and reproductive success of individuals - a small correction to your previous post: NS operates on individual phenotypes, the developed organism that results from their genotype and developmental process (thus including environmental factors and acquired factors in the selection process).

Certainly when NS occurs then evolution occurs, but evolution can also occur without NS.

When mutations occur, and add new hereditary traits, evolution occurs.

NS causes the change in frequency, evolution results from it being changed.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 175 by Arphy, posted 11-27-2009 11:53 PM Arphy has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 240 of 302 (537415)
11-28-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
11-28-2009 12:19 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Hi ICANT,

I understand this to say that if you start with one species of finches with small beaks they would develop the large beaks over a period of time.

No. Evolution is a response mechanism. Change occurs in response to a change in the ecology of the species. Random mutations and genetic drift can cause some difference in the average values of a population, but it is undirected (hence "random" and "drift" terms).

It shows 14 different species of finches that have different size beaks and during wet times the small beak finches increase in number and the large beak finches decrease in number. In dry times the large beak finches increase in number and the small beak finches decrease in number.

This is natural selection: those that are better adapted to the changed ecology survive and breed better than those that are not as well adapted.

Now if that is evolution I am sold.

Natural selection is a part of evolution. One part of many.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 176 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2009 12:19 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2009 1:26 AM RAZD has responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018