|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 11 From: Infiltrating Earth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is True Because Life Needs It | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Invader Scooch, and welcome to the fray.
And to Dr. Adequate on the usefullness of change, it serves its purpose. But it is not an active element. It seems you are trying to imbue change with a purpose or some goal. And evolution is more than just change. Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.
And the Micro-Macro evolution debate is cute until you realize that Macro Evolution is just eons of Micro-Evolution added together. Except that there is one small, but essential, difference between microevolution and macroevolution as used by biologists: microevolution occurs within all breeding populations, while macroevolution involves the division of populations into isolated populations and the subsequent divergence in those populations. Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
quote: The Process of Speciation
quote: Without speciation there would be only one species.
If you are on the Creation side of things, please respond. Unfortunately, it has been a little slow around here due to the low level of Creationist members.
Message 1: For eons this debate has turned into a circus of people shouting at people with no understanding. To a lot of people I have debated, it is just a game. However, I have pulled myself out of that style and have done my homework. Here I present my first argument for why there is evolution. The answer to the above statement is simply because life needs it. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. It is also anthropomorphizing life - life doesn't "need" rather it just is. Whether or nor life continues depends of the relative fitness of the living organisms to survive and reproduce within their ecological contexts. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by Zen Deist, : withing? Edited by Zen Deist, : ...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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi markl67 and welcome to the fray.
I've read through several of your posts and have some comments to make that my help you.
As a believer in creation (ID) it seems to me that the evolution hypothesis attempts to build its case from the 2nd floor up. It cannot reasonably explain the origin of the "primordial ooze" from whence all life originated from. The science of evolution does not address how stars form and are distributed throughout the universe, nor does it address chemical reactions. It does not address how rock formations occur, and it does not address how radioactivity works. The science of evolution does not address these things because they are addressed in other sciences. The science involved with explaining origins of life is abiogenesis: abiogenesis - Google Search The first four hits are worth reading
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis ... The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube Curiously, Dr. Jack Szostak is a scientist who is actually studying and testing possibilities regarding the origin of life on earth, working in the field of abiogenesis. Note that is seems rather dishonest to be proclaiming loudly that evolution does not explain origins when there are people working in the field of abiogenesis to do just that -- so your complaint is not about evolution, but about you not having been informed of the actual science involved.
All life and the perfect order of the universe could not have come into existence by random chance. Regardless of the accuracy of this assertion, there is one thing we know: life exists on this planet now, and life has existed on this planet for some time ... around 3.5 billion years give or take. We can study that life and the record of that life, both with fossils and with DNA. This involves the science of biology, paleontology and genomics.
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Not that in order to have change from one generation to the next you must have living populations: evolution by definition deals with living populations and not the origins of life. Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large). Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so. The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the daughter populations results in different, independent, evolutionary responses in the daughter populations to their different ecological opportunities. Independent evolution within each subpopulation results in divergence of the subpopulations.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. If a species is observed to change (micro-evolution), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the hereditary traits (genes, morphology), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread in following generations. If a clade is observed to form (macro-evolution), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) divergent (micro-)evolution within each daughter population. These predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Message 74: Evolution does not need to explain origins? Exactly my point - building an argument from the 2nd story up. How do I know something doesnt come from nothing? Because it can't and it doesn't - ... And your point is still wrong, evolution deals with changes from generation to generation, and thus life must already exist to study evolution. Evolution does not address origins because that is done within the scientific bounds of abiogenesis. If you want to discuss abiogenesis then we will be happy to do that, but you need to be on a different thread (the topic here is about evolution, not abiogenesis). Your point is like walking into a math class and complaining that they aren't studying history.
... You've heard this example before but it bears repeating...take apart a car and then blow up the parts and then parts re-form into the car (big bang). ... What bears repeating is that this is a hoary old PRATT, and I suggest you learn what the term means.
Message 88: Yes, I know what the HoE says...I'm nor more "indoctrinated" by a pastor than you are by a professor/teacher right?. My contention is that the evolutionary hypothesis is bunk based on the fact that it doesn't address (because it can't) the issue of origin. ... And yet, rather obviously, you do NOT know what the theory of evolution says or you would not be making this statement. Your own words show that your assertion is false.
... Its my contention that all life is by intentional and intelligent design and because of that species do not need to change into something they weren't created for. Adapt/change within a species does not equal evolution. Do you have any scientific objective observable evidence to support this assertion, or are supposed to just take it on faith that you know more about life than millions of biologist when you don't know what the field of evolution studies? Curiously, science does not take a single hypothesis on faith, only hypothesis that are tested against scientific objective observable evidence are deemed worthy of further study. Now if you want to discuss this further, I suggest you start a topic on just this assertion, as it too is not the topic of this thread. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : nglsby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Portillo,
The evolution of a large dog to a small dog is certainly change of a kind. ... Do you agree or disagree that a kind would form a clade of animals related to a common ancestor?
| ^ a / \ / \ / ^ b c ^ / \ / \ / \ Here "a" is a common ancestor to the four end groups, "b" is a common ancestor to the two right side groups, and "c" is a common ancestor to the two left side groups. We see this pattern in DNA and in the fossil record, so we know that this pattern of development of daughter groups from parent groups is a fact in nature. Do you agree or disagree that this is the pattern for the evolution within a kind?
... When He did nothing of the kind. What he discovered was the hereditary pattern of genetic traits by isolating the patterns of hereditary transmission from one generation to the next (even though he did not know about genes - he observed and documented the effects). There is speculation that had Darwin read his work that he would have been in a position to incorporate this into his theory (apparently a copy was in his library).
... he observed that peaplants could be crossbred to create different types of peaplants. And again this is a false statement: he observed that traits in a breeding population could be isolated into dominant and recessive traits. He observed that when pure strains of plants with dominant traits were bred with pure strains of plants with recessive traits, that hybrid plants displaying the dominant traits occurred. He observed that when two of these first generation hybrids were bred that they resulted in two outcomes:
And he observed that the ratio was three plants with dominant traits to one plant with recessive traits. Through further breeding and observation he determined that of the three plants with dominant traits, one had pure dominant traits and two had the same hybrid mix as the first generation hybrids.
Tall ones, short ones, big ones, little ones, different colored ones. He did not create these traits, but isolated them from the existing population of plants. These traits existed in the breeding population of plants.
Similarly with dogs, there is a wide variety of dogs, many of which have been created through selective breeding and artificial selection. All dogs, however, are one species and dont change into something fundamentally different. This isnt because you dont have enough time, its because you run out of variation. I wasn't aware that the world was ending that soon.
While we certainly observe this kind of change:
Do you agree or disagree that these changes took many generations to reach the diversity shown? Do you agree or disagree that the degree of variation seen in dogs is greater than what is normally seen in natural populations of breeding organisms -- ie that this is an extremely large amount of variation for a breeding population to have and still maintain gene flow? Would you care to discuss this further on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread?
The reasoning of course is that selective breeding is proof of evolution. ... Again a false statement. Darwin used the objective empirical evidence of selective breeding as a basis for formulating his theory of natural selection.
This is why evolutionary biologists proclaim minor variation within species such as the peppered moths, as evidence for the grand macro evolutionary changes that happened in the past. ... Peppered moths are evidence of natural selection, not microevolution or macroevolution.
Why is it that the best evidence for a mechanism capable of creating complex organisms, body plans, and changing a species into another, is Darwins finches and the peppered moths? Again this is a falsehood: they are evidence of natural selection, one of the elements that goes into the process of evolution.
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Hereditary traits per Mendel plus natural selection per Darwin, the moths and finches, plus generations of breeding results in evolution. Macroevolution occurs when speciation has occurred:
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other. Once speciation has occurred there is more diversity of species.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Note that speciation has been observed, whether it is incipient in dogs is immaterial to the fact that it -- and thus macroevolution -- has occurred. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : betr nglsby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Portillo writes: All dogs, however, are one species and dont change into something fundamentally different. This isnt because you dont have enough time, its because you run out of variation. Given mutation, how does one run out of variation? quote: Note that the ones that breed true mean that the genes for the breed type have been isolated, and that these are like the pure breeds of peas that Mendel isolated in his experiments; that they are new means that they have one or more mutations that were not previously isolated in a breeding population. These are new variations within the dog clade, and it seems the process of mutation and variation is still operating. Certainly these new breeds have added to the diversity of dogs. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi hooah212002,
So is a wolf of the dog kind too? What of a fox? Coyote? Dingo? Are ALL of these just different "kinds" of dogs? Personally I find the easiest way to discuss kinds is by using cladistics, as this avoids the question of what level of taxonomy is involved (which seems to change with moods).
quote: Note that extinct species, such as the Dire Wolf, are not shown in the cladogram, only currently living species. So the questions for creationists are ...
This chart also does not show the silver fox, which is a melanistic form of red fox that was subjected to 50 years of selective breeding in Siberia to develop a tame variety for the fox farming industry ... and ended up with a domesticated variety with traits similar to the domestic dog ... so does that mean that foxes must be a member of the dog kind? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : dire wold linkby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again hooah212002,
... What you are doing is called "making sense" using fact and evidence: ... What I have done is take what creationist say about kinds and noted that this is similar to the way biologists talk about clades. They don't care about genus and family etc classifications, just that a specific group of species form a kind that evolved from an original common ancestor. The disagreement between biology and creationism is that they claim there were a number of common ancestors, while biologists are happy with a small group of bacteria interchanging (via horizontal transfer) soon after life appeared. Personally I find clade to be a good working definition for kinds in these discussions, something that can be agreed on .... Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
I suspect that in practise a "kind" is whatever creationists think evolution is unable to result in. And that is the basis for the thread Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? which does not appear to attract any creationist involvement, even though, imho, it should be of interest to them ... Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Chuck77
quote: Yes, I think so. ... Would you expect one to become exactly like the other, or through convergent evolution to have similar behavior and appearance, as we see with the sugar glider (australian marsupial) and the flying squirrel (north american placental)?
... Variation within a kind is what I would call it. From Dogs will be Dogs will be ???:
quote: Do you mean that they are the same kind? If so, you're being very kind. If these critters are of the same kind then all carnivora are also one kind, yes?
I'm not talking so much about - (macro) as I am (micro) - for a lack of better terms. Can you tell me what (you think) happens in macroevolution that is not included in microevolution? Enjoy.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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024