Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 286 of 302 (537585)
11-29-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 12:55 PM


have fun
Hi Balder-dash,
The question was-what scientific proof do we have for NS being the great cause of the evolutionary cycle that makes up the diversity of life as we know it (an inference that I think was fairly obvious).
Which was answered. Or at least the part that was obvious and applicable to actual evolution, as actually used by scientiests ...
Have you figured out what "evolutionary change" is yet? Please let us know eh?
To answer this question, you need to explain NS more fully, not just in terms of making some beaks sizes more common at one time of the year, and less common at other times- but how can it make this complete package. Can it combine with RM, with genetic drift, without some other forces to do what we see? You can believe that it can if you wish, but can you really show that it has. That IT is the thing responsible for making eyes. That IT is what makes us attracted to tall Swedish girls in small bikinis?
Once again you are using natural selection to replace all of evolution, from process to science. All of this can be explained by the theory of evolution, ToE, which involves natural selection and mutation and etc etc etc, ... but not by natural selection alone, because NS ≠ ToE, and ToE > NE.
Have you figured out what "complexity" is yet? Let us know eh?
So this was a chance for some people to explain some incredible scientific studies they had seen, which really convinced them, that there is no other way to explain what is going on around us. I say to first prove this, you have to prove that the mutations are indeed random, because if they aren't then it really isn't NS making the decision at all, it is some other force. But alas, there isn't much, and what there is is open to interpretation in any number of ways. So that in itself is an answer.
Ah yes, we failed to explain every little thing to your satisfaction with natural selection, therefore evolution is a total failure? Sorry, the logic of this eludes me.
Cheers.
Does this mean that you have decided to declared victory and are now taking your leave .... before actually dealing with the questions of what you mean by "evolutionary change" and "complexity" .... one wonders why?
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 285 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 1:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM RAZD has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 287 of 302 (537589)
11-29-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by RAZD
11-29-2009 1:29 PM


Re: have fun
Does this mean that you have decided to declared victory and are now taking your leave .... before actually dealing with the questions of what you mean by "evolutionary change" and "complexity" .... one wonders why?
Hopefully not. Hopefully it means this thread is dead, and he is going to start individual threads on the individual subjects as has been suggested to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 1:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3620 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 288 of 302 (537594)
11-29-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by RAZD
11-29-2009 1:29 PM


Re: have fun
It wasn't a declaration of anything other than an acknowledgment that what some people who believe in the ToE call evidence, others who have a different mindset might see otherwise.
For instance, one of the "tests" presented to show NS is real was the study of the kuru resistance in New Guinea. However, the test didn't show a slow gradual process of evolution as Darwin claimed, it showed a rapid change to an environmental pressure-the exact opposite. Now this is the test that someone wanted to use to show the theory IS true, even though it didn't show what the theory says at all. Now of course, they said, well it MIGHT have been occurring over a long period of time, and we just didn't know about it.
So the tests shows a short time frame, which would CONTRADICT tenets of the theory instead of supporting it, but just because someone can say well IT MIGHT HAVE been over a long period of time, they are going to choose to believe this instead. They prefer to rationalize an artificial idea about what MIGHT be, instead of simply accepting that the test doesn't show that. That to me shows a fundamental lack of objective thought, and sort of defeats the purpose.
Now, I can certainly understand why so many people WANT to believe in NS, because it is the only theory that can protect their believe in atheism. No other theory will do that. So even if a test shows otherwise, its best to still believe it MIGHT be true. Because once NS is not enough to explain things, all hope is lost. There is no other theory that is going to give you the random mutations you need to believe in atheism. Once the randomness is gone, your entire world view is gone, and that is not something most people will readily accept, so they will interrupt all data the way they want it.
So since I am not really going to get much unbiased thought here, there is not really much more to be gained. I believe one person said, the scientific community is more open minded about accepting flaws in the theory of gravity than they are in the theory of evolution. That is not very scientific in my opinion.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 1:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Larni, posted 11-29-2009 2:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 290 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 3:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 292 by penstemo, posted 11-29-2009 3:35 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 293 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 4:08 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 4:11 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 289 of 302 (537596)
11-29-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 2:31 PM


Re: have fun
Hi BB.
However, the test didn't show a slow gradual process of evolution as Darwin claimed, it showed a rapid change to an environmental pressure-the exact opposite.
How is this a problem for ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 290 of 302 (537600)
11-29-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 2:31 PM


Re: have fun
For instance, one of the "tests" presented to show NS is real was the study of the kuru resistance in New Guinea
Proffessor John Collinge writes:
"It's absolutely fascinating to see Darwinian principles at work here. This community of people has developed their own biologically unique response to a truly terrible epidemic. The fact that this genetic evolution has happened in a matter of decades is remarkable."
Professor John Collinge, Director of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Prion Unit
Oh, but you know better than this professor, right?
Now, I can certainly understand why so many people WANT to believe in NS, because it is the only theory that can protect their believe in atheism. No other theory will do that. So even if a test shows otherwise, its best to still believe it MIGHT be true. Because once NS is not enough to explain things, all hope is lost. There is no other theory that is going to give you the random mutations you need to believe in atheism. Once the randomness is gone, your entire world view is gone, and that is not something most people will readily accept, so they will interrupt all data the way they want it.
1: Atheism is not a belief
2: Have you ever heard of a theostic-evolutionist? The Catholic Church? Is the Catholic Church an atheist group? I guess one of our own (catholic scientist) is actually an atheist, huh?
3: Natural Selection is but one mechanism in the study of evolution.
4: Evolution has nothing at all to do with atheism, atheism nothing to do with evolution.
Until you can come to grips with at least those 4 things, you are forever lost. Carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when you are done.
I believe one person said, the scientific community is more open minded about accepting flaws in the theory of gravity than they are in the theory of evolution.
I bet that person was a creationist, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 291 of 302 (537605)
11-29-2009 3:31 PM


Summation Time
Given how little this thread's topic is being discussed I'm going to enforce the 300 post cutoff, so time for summations.
Please, do not reply to anyone's messages.
Please, post only summations.
Please, post only one summation.
Please, post only on-topic. I'll be hiding off-topic posts and portions of posts.
If you post before seeing this, go back and edit your post into a summation.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 13
From: Indiana, USA
Joined: 11-24-2009


Message 292 of 302 (537606)
11-29-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 2:31 PM


Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide contents of message that wasn't a summation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4706 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 293 of 302 (537609)
11-29-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 2:31 PM


Re: have fun
Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by lyx2no, : Sp.
Edited by lyx2no, : Hide OT.
Edited by lyx2no, : Weaken one statemnet and strengthen another.
Edited by Admin, : Hide non-summation, it's actually a reply to Bolder-dash.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 294 of 302 (537610)
11-29-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 2:31 PM


Summary
Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide non-summation, it's actually a reply to Bolder-dash.

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 288 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 295 of 302 (537636)
11-29-2009 9:18 PM


A Note About Summations
A summation isn't a rebuttal that happens to be your last post. Think of summations more as what a lawyer does in his closing arguments, which are made to the jury and not to the other side. Refer to the other side in the 3rd person.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 296 of 302 (537638)
11-29-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by lyx2no
11-29-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Beachin' Field Trip
Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 12:47 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by xongsmith, posted 11-30-2009 5:05 PM xongsmith has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 297 of 302 (537641)
11-30-2009 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2009 10:21 AM


Re: Hybrids
Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 10:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 298 of 302 (537653)
11-30-2009 4:13 AM


My summation
Since it's still not entirely clear to me what the topic of this thread was supposed to be about, I'll just keep this summation to NS (Natural Selection), which was the original question asked in the OP.
Throughout the thread we've been trying to make clear that NS works regardless of whether there are changes to the DNA or not. And that this has absolutely nothing to do with RM (Radnom Mutations). There have been examples given of NS at work in the wild, so clearly it has been demonstrated to work.
The most important thing to remember perhaps is that evolutionary change (something the OP wanted to see if NS had any effect on), is indeed effected by NS. Extinction is also evolution, so even if there were no RM and every species would go extinct, that would still be evolutionary change, and it would be accomplished by NS alone.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 299 of 302 (537656)
11-30-2009 4:48 AM


closing remarks
Balder-Dash's conflation of natural selection together with evolution has done no one any good. Upon repeatedly being informed of the mistake BD was none the wiser at the end of the thread as at the start. BD would do well to simply take the little time needed to learn the basic biology behind his many fully false ideas concerning and surrounding evolution and the ToE. It would even seem he has a penchant for clear thinking and could well profit from his efforts; although his stubbornness and arrogance is self defeating to a great extent.
Selection is clearly unequivocally taking place in nature. Some individuals are better able to reproduce than others especially within their own populations. These are facts easily determined to be true.

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 300 of 302 (537734)
11-30-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by xongsmith
11-29-2009 11:54 PM


Has Natural Selection really been tested and verified?
YES

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by xongsmith, posted 11-29-2009 11:54 PM xongsmith 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