Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,586 Year: 2,843/9,624 Month: 688/1,588 Week: 94/229 Day: 5/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 34 of 323 (806189)
04-23-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Davidjay
04-23-2017 11:58 AM


Re: On selection
Hi Davidjay,
I've been on vacation, so I'm coming in a little later than the others. I'll try simple first;
But of course we know there are no beneficial mutations that have ever existed that lived and created a new species. ...
Please show your evidence, if you want to talk science. If you want to talk belief then you can blather on all you want.
Curiously belief has had remarkably little effect on reality.
But of course we know there are no beneficial mutations that have ever existed that lived and created a new species. ...
Polyploid mutations create new species. The species live, and therefore natural selection means the mutation is beneficial. QED
See how that works? Evidence shows my claim is valid, it has been observed, and it refutes your unsubstantiated claim.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 29 by Davidjay, posted 04-23-2017 11:58 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


(1)
Message 59 of 323 (806325)
04-24-2017 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 11:26 AM


I only defend my own words, and works and design, ...
Then defend your claim in Message 29 that I refuted in Message 34.
you said:
But of course we know there are no beneficial mutations that have ever existed that lived and created a new species. ...
My response was:
Polyploid mutations create new species. The species live, and therefore natural selection means the mutation is beneficial. QED
This falsifies your claim, and you have not defended it.
Now I expect you will dodge rather than be honest and admit that you were wrong.
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 41 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 11:26 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


(3)
Message 81 of 323 (806419)
04-25-2017 1:20 PM


Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
afer Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime"
I have been giving this a bit a thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:
Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
  1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
  2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
  3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution works. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
  4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
  5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.
The more I read this "Davidjay" postings the more I become convinced he is in the 4th category, not really interested in real, honest debate, certainly not interested in learning.
Pity.
I'm starting a new thread with this topic.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:42 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 83 of 323 (806426)
04-25-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 11:42 AM


I tried simple.
Variability as in mankind, is limited to the superficial, ...
What limits it? You've been asked this several times yet refuse to answer. It is dishonest to repeat something that has been questioned without providing substantiation.
... as with leg length etc etc etc etc etc... and more etc. Its variety but we do NOT get a new species or apelike creature from our combinations via mating
As noted in Message 34 and repeated in Message 59 you were caught espousing false information. To wit, you claimed:
But of course we know there are no beneficial mutations that have ever existed that lived and created a new species. ...
My response the second time was:
Polyploid mutations create new species. The species live, and therefore natural selection means the mutation is beneficial. QED
This falsifies your claim, and you have not defended it.
Now I expect you will dodge rather than be honest and admit that you were wrong.
Now I notice that you have moved the goal-posts to claim that no new ape has evolved. Thanks for proving my prediction correct. This helps me categorize you and the worth of your posts.
Polyploidy is rare in more complex species, but partial polyploidy has been known to occur (see wiki: Polyploid).
More commonly this results is sections of duplications of DNA, where one copy can continue to do what it has done and the other copy is free to mutate and evolve without necessarily impacting the individuals involved. This is a neutral mutation that can then be used as a foundation for later development of new traits.
Basic evolution 101. It works, it is real.
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 71 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 11:42 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:56 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 86 of 323 (806432)
04-25-2017 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 1:42 PM


Evolution is easily explained.
I wonder why evolutionists cant explain their own theory ...
Whatever gave you this bizarre idea ... if you are asking honestly (rather than trolling).
Fortunately there are resources where you can check your claim against actual reality.
Welcome to Evolution 101! is a website set up to teach evolution to those who are willing to learn.
I can also give you a quick "cliff-notes" version:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
The process of evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
(2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations.
The process of speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations (also called "macro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
(3) 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.
If you have questions feel free to ask. I can also expand this into more complex steps to go into these processes in greater depth if you so wish, but this is the is the bare-bones nutshell description.
Having explained the theory so easily, it is obvious that your assertion is once again a false claim.
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 82 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:42 PM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 87 of 323 (806434)
04-25-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 1:56 PM


Moving goal-posts is not honest debate
The Lord limits it, and reality shows it as their has never ever been a beneficial mutation.
But thanks for admitting that you think variability is a mutational change, and want to fight to the hilt on that premise.
I repeat, I repeat inbreeding does not produce a new dog species. You can try and try Raz, as others have, but those wierd dogs are still just dogs.
Such a desperate desperate ploy Raz.
Moving the goal-posts again.
Thanks for proving your dishonesty.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 84 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:56 PM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 90 of 323 (806443)
04-25-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 1:56 PM


Ignorance of evolution processes and results
I repeat, I repeat inbreeding does not produce a new dog species. You can try and try Raz, as others have, but those wierd dogs are still just dogs.
It always amuses me when creationists say things like this and think it is devastating for the theory of evolution.
If they actually studied evolution, they should quickly find that this is a prediction of evolution -- that the descendants of dogs will always be the descendants of dogs.
And the other thing that is amusing is that the variability of dogs shows that mutations occur, we can document them and we can tie a lot of them to specific traits as a result of the strict breeding records used for breeding dogs ... which are bred (a) to maintain stasis for a "recognized breed" or (b) to produce a new breed, which is often done by back breeding with other breed (there has never been any intention of producing a new species).
What evolution says is that nested hierarchies will occur as a result of speciation events.
When multiple speciation events occur, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" clade.
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 84 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:56 PM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:07 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 94 of 323 (807585)
05-04-2017 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by CRR
05-04-2017 7:07 AM


Re: Ignorance of evolution processes and results
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" clade.
Or in other words
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" kind.
Yep. I have said for some time that the best fit of kinds is clades ... the only significant difference is how far back you go to find the original ancestral population.
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 93 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not replied

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


Message 101 of 323 (807657)
05-04-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tanypteryx
05-04-2017 11:02 AM


memes are like genes, inheritable and selectable
behaviours do not get passed on in genetics...... looking both ways is a learned response...learned responses do not change our DNA...
Not all behaviors are learned you ignorant pseudocreationist.
Actually I have to side with Davidjay here, not because he is right, but because "looking both ways" is a meme - a behavior taught by parents to young.
This "inherited knowledge" is common to many animals, especially social ones and ones where mothers take care of the young until they are old enough -- and versed enough -- to go out on their own.
Like genes, memes that benefit survival and reproduction get passed from one generation to the next (ie - are selected), while those that inhibit survival and reproduction tend to be lost, although this may take a while.
And of course god/s have nothing to do with learning to look both ways or with parents teaching their children to do so.
behavoirs are given us humans at birth, from Creation.
Good grief, grow up. Even third graders know this is BS.
When you learn something you didn't know or do, then obviously it was not imbued at birth. Gosh even adults learn new behaviors (cell phone selfies for example) ... not all of them good.
Not all behaviors are learned you ignorant pseudocreationist.
Agreed, things like right\left handed are genetic traits that show in the different behavior when throwing or writing, for example.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 97 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-04-2017 11:02 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-04-2017 4:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 105 of 323 (807972)
05-07-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Davidjay
05-07-2017 11:07 AM


Re: memes are like genes, inheritable and selectable
Mutations do not bring on learned behaviours...
Correct. However mutations can alter instinctive behavior:
quote:
Behavior mutation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A behaviour mutation is a genetic mutation that alters genes that control the way in which an organism behaves, causing their behavioural patterns to change.
A genetic mutation is a change or error in the genomic sequence of a cell.[1] It can occur during meiosis or replication of DNA, as well as due to ionizing or UV radiation, transposons, mutagenic chemicals, viruses and a number of other factors.[2][3][4] Mutations usually (but not always) result in a change in an organisms fitness. These changes are largely deleterious, having a negative effect on fitness; however, they can also be neutral and even advantageous.[1][5]
It is theorized that these mutations, along with genetic recombination, are the raw material upon which natural selection can act to form evolutionary processes.[6] This is due to selection's tendency to "pick and choose" mutations which are advantageous and pass them on to an organism's offspring, while discarding deleterious mutations. In asexual lineages, these mutations will always be passed on, causing them to become a crucial factor in whether the lineage will survive or go extinct.[1]
One way that mutations manifest themselves is behaviour mutation. Some examples of this could be variations in mating patterns,[7] increasingly aggressive or passive demeanor,[8] how an individual learns and the way an individual interacts and coordinates with others.[9]
Note that these are instinctive behaviors that are modified by mutation, and then they are selected ... preserved if beneficial or neutral, removed if deleterious.
and learned behaviours are not passed onto new generations of insects or humans.
Wrong.
Memes are learned behaviors passed from generation to generation. Behaviors get positively selected if beneficial, but rejected if deleterious. Social species (insects to humans) tend to pass on beneficial learned behaviors from generation to generation, such as returning to a source of nutrition.
Instincts are implanted in the original species. ...
(1) What is the original species? What is your evidence? Untestable unevidenced assertions are not science.
(2) Behaviors change over time (see behavior mutation above) so daughter instincts are different from parent instincts.
... Birds do not learn to fly by the stars, ...
Yet the migration routes and patterns and times of year and destinations change over time. Look at the Canada Goose for example:
quote:
Canada Goose Relationship with humans
In North America, nonmigratory Canada goose populations have been on the rise. The species is frequently found on golf courses, parking lots, and urban parks, which would have previously hosted only migratory geese on rare occasions. Owing to its adaptability to human-altered areas, it has become the most common waterfowl species in North America.[citation needed] In many areas, nonmigratory Canada geese are now regarded as pests by humans.
Nonmigratory geese have evolved to adapt to a new ecological environment, an obviously beneficial adaptation as their numbers are rising.
Is it genes or is it memes? Doesn't matter as the result is the same: beneficial behavior is selected because it increases survival and reproduction.
I repeat learned behaviour does not go into our genes, never has, never will. ...
However behavior mutations are genetic and they are subject to selection.
... A species does not get more educated and brighter and more viable via mutations or supposed evolution.
Humans obviously have. The changes in brain volume and shape has increased intelligence over time, due to creativity being positively selected.
Its just a theory in the minds of insect-ologists who have been in the fields way toooo long. Sexual genes are not influenced by what happens to a species or KIND in their lifetime and in their experiences while alive.
Curiously it keeps cropping up in the objective empirical evidence of mutations, benefits and selection.
ps - the word is entomologist.
Mother Nature does not select as if alive ...
An oxymoron.
... Nature does not select ..., beneficial mutations or beneficials behaviours........
Curiously it just keeps cropping up all over the place in the objective empirical evidence of mutations, benefits and selection. Perhaps you would be interested in #3 below:
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
Seems to fit to me.
Got any evidence (not assertions) that selection doesn't happen? (not holding my breath).
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : human intelligence evolved

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 103 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 108 of 323 (808163)
05-08-2017 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
05-08-2017 3:32 PM


What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
From another thread:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? "
Beretta, Message 7
If it looks like a dog, and walks like a dog ... but it walked the earth ~55 million years ago ...
So what do you suppose this became (two different renderings of the same critter)?

(note colors is probably not accurate and muscles might be somewhat different, but the skeletal structure and skull are from fossils).
They ran in small groups, on padded feet, in a forest and grassland type environments.
Any guesses? What limits on their evolution were imposed and how?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added second image for comparison

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 107 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 6:03 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 110 of 323 (808207)
05-09-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
05-08-2017 6:03 PM


Re: What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
Equidae. ...
Well done.
So if this ...
Can evolve by simple microevolutionary steps (mutation and selection) into these ...
... all the while remaining in the Phenacodus clade ... (once a phenacodus always a phenacodus) ...
Is that not macroevolution, complete with novel features (blood filled pad in the hoof acts as supplimentary heart, pumping blood up the leg as they run)?
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 109 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 6:03 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 118 of 323 (808263)
05-09-2017 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
05-09-2017 12:12 PM


Re: Start talking about biology.
At the very least, try to show us that you understand what "selection" means in biology. There's nothing in your posts so far that suggests that you do.
But if he did that he would no longer have to troll the post with spam and making false statements just to get a response.
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 117 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 12:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 2:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 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

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


(2)
Message 136 of 323 (808376)
05-10-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:34 AM


Putting Davidjay back on track ... maybe ...
This is your first post on this thread, this is what sets the topic of discussion:
quote:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs, after they try to confirm Her or His or Its Godlike Process.
They can try to select a spokesperson, or two or three, who can testify to its godlike qualities, and then lets start the debate.
IHS
David
PS) But lets stick totally to biology and science, and maybe math rather than allowing their religious views to enter IN. Thanks
Any questions you make that do not address this specific topic of debunking selection is off topic and irrelevant whether they are answered or not.
You have introduced religion several times, in spite of your plea to keep the thread free of it.
You have yet to make a single post that purports to debunk selection.
You have also gone off on several tangents about speciation, new kinds, frequently with glaring errors between what you claim and what science says. It is not surprising that these kind of comments of yours draw posts that are not on topic -- because you started them, and your posts are written in the manner of trolls.
So whining that you have made replies to posts does not address the fact that all the ones with specific examples of selection occurring are unanswered with anything regarding selection.
Perhaps you don't even know what selection is and how it is defined in evolutionary science:
quote:
Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", and compared it with artificial selection. ...
That's the nuts and bolts definition. A more detailed description is:
quote:
Natural selection
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:
1.There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.
2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.
3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.
4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.
As noted in several posts this process has been observed many times, it is a FACT that selection occurs.
Let the hand-waving denials and obfuscations begin ... as Davidjay fails and fails and fails to debunk selection.
It's like debunking gravity: we know it exists.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 1 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:34 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