Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 1:44 PM
358 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 349 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,351 Year: 23,957/21,208 Month: 1,922/2,468 Week: 15/416 Day: 15/24 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 137 of 323 (808382)
05-10-2017 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
There I have totally answered question 121, 124, 122, ...

False. You have written posts that do not relate to the evidence of selection provided, rather you go off on some Gish Gallop on other topics all together.

This is you failing to answer those posts:

quote:
Message 121: Let me start with the iconic Peppered Moths then:

quote:
Please note that this is a creationist site and they have just said that "This is natural selection in action, but not evolution."

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?


Your response to the message: none.

quote:
Message 122: Another example very similar to the peppered moth is melanism (i.e. coat color) in rock pocket mice:

Researchers were able to trace the black coat color to specific mutations:

"We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full

Biologists explain this non-random distribution of coat color as a result of camouflage that protects against predation. This is natural selection. No deities involved, just the consequence of some mice carrying a gene that makes them less noticeable or more noticeable to predators. When they stand out in the environment they are eaten more often so their genes aren't passed on at the same rate.

If Davidjay has another explanation for this non-random distribution of coat color in rock pocket mice, now would be the time to hear it.


Your response to the message: none.

quote:
Message 124: Well, we've had Oldfield Mice, Peppered Moths, and Pocket Mice, so let's have Men.

Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y

What are your technical objections* to this research, Dave, which tells you how you got your pretty white ass. And you now have made 28 posts without any sign of "logically and systematically" debunking selection.


Your reply:

quote:
Message 125: Blue genes,

Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...

You must show us some men evolving or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women.

But please no more rabbits in a hat. Thanks

David


Note the complete absence of the word "selection" in your reply, and the total absence of any reference to the selection observed in the listed posts.

Your thread is not about transforming fur to scales or missing links, but debunking selection, specifically natural selection of specific traits that have differential success in survival and reproduction, and as such it is a total fail response.

See Message 1 if you are confused about the topic.

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 134 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:44 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 3:21 PM RAZD has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 138 of 323 (808420)
05-10-2017 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
05-10-2017 12:32 PM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.

Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine.

Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND.

That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change.

The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead....


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 12:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 3:27 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 4:34 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 141 by frako, posted 05-10-2017 5:48 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 139 of 323 (808424)
05-10-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 3:21 PM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
Davidjay writes:

If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.
Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine.

Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND.

That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change.

The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead....

This thread is not about racism or speciation. This thread is about natural selection. We have offered two examples of natural selection. Please address them.

If you need help understanding what natural selection is, please ask.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 3:21 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 140 of 323 (808431)
05-10-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 3:21 PM


Re: Color is not a new KIND, nor is the thread about "NEW KINDs"
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.

Curiously this thread is not about creating a "NEW KIND" nor is it about your racism fantasy, it is about selection. You lose.

Would you care to try again and address the issue of selection as shown in Message 121, Message 122 and Message 124. Your Message 125 was a complete failure to address the issue.

You lost again.

For reference on what selection means, please see Message 136

Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine.

Except nobody claimed color created a new KIND or species. You lose.

You have yet to establish that "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and I suggest that you return to that topic and do that before spamming other threads with this assertion. You lose.

Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND.

And again, nobody claimed this. What you see is one variety of Pepper moth was selected preferentially over another variety ... of the same species, and thus is an example of selection in action. You lose again.

That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change.

The lie is yours, by putting words in people's mouths that are not what they say. Another loss.

The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead....

Says the person who appears to be totally incapable of debunking selection ... especially in the face of several examples. Posting a bunch of incoherent phrases, while technically "a reply" is not a response to the substance of the previous post.

You have not addressed selection. Fail.

Loser


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 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 3:21 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 141 of 323 (808435)
05-10-2017 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 3:21 PM


Re: Color is not a new KIND
What is a kind?

If you are talking about the ability to breed then explain ring species with your creation theory.

or

Larus gulls are one of the big examples of this. Larus is a genus, comprised of several different species, some of which live in a circle around the North Pole. One species of Larus gull lives in Norway. Another lives in Russia. Others live in Siberia, Alaska, Northern Canada, and England. The Larus gulls that live in England can interbreed with the Larus gulls that live in Canada. But they can't interbreed with the ones from Norway. As the Larus gulls' common ancestor circumnavigated the pole, its descendants ended up more and more different from the original population that had been left behind. By the time Larus gulls met Larus gulls again, they were so different as to be unable (or unwilling) to produce chicks together. But scientists consider every step in that process to be a different species not just the gulls at either end of the broken ring.

http://boingboing.net/...4/leeches-are-a-hypothesis-why.html

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 3:21 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:37 PM frako has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 142 of 323 (808440)
05-10-2017 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by frako
05-10-2017 5:48 PM


ring species
I love ring species. They are a great example of how a species varies within itself and comes to a point of inability to interbreed with members of the original population, but are still that same species. They most likely lose the ability to interbreed simply because of a genetic mismatch after so many population splits with decreasing genetic diversity. It is one of my most favorite examples for how "evolution defeats evolution:" the populations are evolving from one to another around the ring, developing new phenotypes and losing genetic diversity as they go. This could be a version of the laboratory experiment I mentioned. I know it's claimed they don't lose genetic diversity but they have to. It has to be the reason for the genetic mismatch when the two ends of the ring meet.

Oh and it doesn't take millions of years. Maybe a hundred.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by frako, posted 05-10-2017 5:48 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by frako, posted 05-11-2017 3:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 145 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 143 of 323 (808458)
05-10-2017 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Davidjay writes:

Blue genes,

Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales.

Did you mean to say: Changes in skin, eye and hair color don't mean that there have been changes from skin into non-skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales?

If so, that's trivially true, certainly.

Does that mean you agree with the evidence in the paper for positive natural selection taking place for colouring in Europeans, or that you disagree?

David writes:

The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory.

Of course not. It is just an example of natural selection occurring in the wild, one of many that shows us that natural selection is a real phenomenon, and therefore that its existence can't be "logically and systematically" debunked.

Davidjay writes:

Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...

Actually, the mutation can be dated to long after the species came into existence.

Davidjay writes:

You must show us some men evolving....

That's exactly what the paper I linked to did show. Humans, like other organisms, are always evolving.

Davidjay writes:

.....or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women.

But please no more rabbits in a hat. Thanks

David

Don't you like the idea of rabbits being magicked out of a hat? Isn't ex nihilo creation your thing?

If you are going to "logically and systematically" debunk the readily observed creative processes of mutation and selection, surely you should be showing us that rabbits and other modern organisms can be created ex nihilo, or some other alternative to the view favoured by biologists, shouldn't you?

So, you've made more than 30 posts on the thread now. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection? When are you going to pull that rabbit magically out of an empty hat?

Blue genes*

*positively selected


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 144 of 323 (808480)
05-11-2017 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:37 PM


Re: ring species
losing genetic diversity as they go. This could be a version of the laboratory experiment I mentioned. I know it's claimed they don't lose genetic diversity but they have to. It has to be the reason for the genetic mismatch when the two ends of the ring meet.

Prove it. As fare as i can tell they have no genetic desieses among their whole population a sign of lack of genetic diversity. Like lions do for example.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:15 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 9:05 PM frako has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 145 of 323 (808483)
05-11-2017 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:37 PM


Re: ring species
According to Jerry Coyne there are no ring species.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...-no-ring-species
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 146 of 323 (808485)
05-11-2017 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by frako
05-11-2017 3:55 AM


Re: ring species
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole.

Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by frako, posted 05-11-2017 3:55 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 8:46 AM CRR has responded
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 10:59 AM CRR has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 147 of 323 (808494)
05-11-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Notice how I always answer queries
Hi Davidjay,

Your topic is debunking selection, but you're instead talking about racism and speciation and other things. Please address the topic or I will drop this thread into summation mode.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 11:24 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 148 of 323 (808498)
05-11-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:15 AM


Re: ring species
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole.

Curiously purebred dogs are controlled and maintained by high artificial selection pressure, where any pup that doesn't measure up is dropped.

Bad example for use against natural selection, but excellent example of why creationist arguments are wrong -- their posited unevidenced position only occurs in extreme artificial selection conditions, not in the wild.

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 146 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:15 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 5:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 149 of 323 (808520)
05-11-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:15 AM


Re: ring species
CRR writes:

Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost.

The mutations leading to black coat color in pocket mice is an example of how mutations increase genetic diversity.

Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment.

Those bacterial lineages also have mutations not found in the original parent stock, and some of those mutations were fixed in the population through positive natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:15 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 6:09 PM Taq has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 150 of 323 (808626)
05-11-2017 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
05-11-2017 8:46 AM


Re: ring species
Darwin used many examples of animal breeding to support his arguments for natural selection. Since humans are part of nature then deliberate selection by humans is a form of natural selection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 8:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Tangle, posted 05-11-2017 6:33 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 9:07 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 10:51 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017