Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 9:01 PM
404 online now:
edge, halibut, jar, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity (7 members, 397 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,909 Year: 27,515/21,208 Month: 1,428/1,714 Week: 271/365 Day: 40/73 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 256 of 323 (811088)
06-05-2017 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Davidjay
06-03-2017 6:10 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Biologists use the peppered moth as a clear example of one of the core aspects of evolutionary theory - natural selection.

Natural selection results in a change in the frequency of existing traits in a population over time.

Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause.

Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 6:10 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2017 3:39 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:13 AM CRR has responded
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:27 PM CRR has responded

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


Message 257 of 323 (811089)
06-05-2017 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Tangle
06-02-2017 3:19 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
Tangle writes:

The ToE does not say that all life comes from a common ancestor, ...


According to Jerry Coyne it does!
"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009] (emphasis added)

Jerry Coyne is an esteemed evolutionary biologist and the author of "Why Evolution is True".

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Tangle, posted 06-02-2017 3:19 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 06-05-2017 6:46 AM CRR has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 258 of 323 (811090)
06-05-2017 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:

The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.

If you'd stopped before making this unfounded assertion or simply said that the result of the beneficial mutation and subsequent natural selection did not result in speciation you would have made a series of evidence based objective comments.

Instead you let your irrational bias spoil it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 3:25 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29623
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 259 of 323 (811103)
06-05-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:30 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
Learn to read.

Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanism not a recitation of the history.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 3:30 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 7:56 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 260 of 323 (811105)
06-05-2017 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. ...

Indeed, and the normal white variety is called Biston betularia typica

While the black variety is called Biston betularia carbonaria

They are both members of the species Biston betularia, and they are members of the Biston genus

The names show the classification as genus name, species name, variety name

Davidjay appears to have trouble distinguishing between species and varieties.

... One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause.

Indeed, as discussed on the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection thread they do alight occasionally on trunks and branches:

quote:
In his 34 years of moth hunting, Majerus has discovered 47 peppered moths at rest by day in the wild. ... Majerus separates into categories the position on trees where the moths were located (trunk, trunk/branch joint, branches). While the trunk/branch joint was the most common site, his data indicate that the moths do not all rest in the same place. ...

But that is among the ones he found, which was not many.

Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.

Curiously I am always amused at how adamant creationists are at pointing out this is not an example speciation when it was never intended to be, it is just an example of natural selection (which even the ICR article points out), as noted in the thread (although they are wrong about no new genes):

quote:
... 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. ...

Evolution requires mutation and selection, so we only have part of the picture here. Recent lab analysis has discovered the mutation that causes the dark version, and that gives us the other part of the picture: this is evolution ... a gene allele is altered, causing variation within the species population, but not speciation. Again, the ICR article noted this as well: "All the while, the two types were interfertile."

As I noted in the thread this example tests natural selection but not speciation:

natural selectionspeciation
theory testedyesno
theory validatedyesno
theory invalidatednono

Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to validate or invalidate speciation.

... The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, ...

Speciation does not occur in situations where there is gene sharing between varieties, so claiming it could is rather a strawman.

... let alone a non-moth.

Which is a concept that only creationists seem to argue about: the "hopeful monster" that is suddenly not a member of the "varied-antennae" (Heterocera) supergroup, perhaps not even a member of the Order Lepidoptera, ... and completely bypassing a new genus from Bistula or a new family from Geometridae ...

Misunderstanding evolution leads to silly arguments like this.

As this thread is about selection, the Peppered Moth more than adequately destroys the thread thesis that selection does not occur -- this is even accepted widely within the creationist ranks. Continuing to argue that selection does not occur flies in the face of the facts and is delusional.

We can leave the issue of speciation to another thread, such as our current discussion on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

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 256 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 3:25 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:03 AM RAZD has responded

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


Message 261 of 323 (811108)
06-05-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
06-05-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
jar writes:

Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution.


You mean in the chapter "What is Evolution" where he says

quote:
In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can
be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth
evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-
replicating molecule—that lived more than a billion years ago; it then
branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and
the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural
selection.

Kinda sounds like a description of the Theory of Evolution to me


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 06-05-2017 6:46 AM jar has not yet responded

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


Message 262 of 323 (811109)
06-05-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
06-05-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
RAZD writes:

As this thread is about selection,

No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 8:43 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:21 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 263 of 323 (811112)
06-05-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:03 AM


semantic twaddle
No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.

Where you say creationists accept that selection occurs and then say it is dead? fascinating.

Before you start equivocating let me remind you that the OP states:

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'.

The thread is about selection. Selection IS non-random, virtually by definition. The process of evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Unless ALL offspring survive to reproduce, selection occurs, and you can see it every time you see a dead animal. Every time a predator catches prey natural selection occurs. Every time a herbivore eats plants natural selection occurs.

Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.

Natural selection is alive and well and living with a species near you.

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 262 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:03 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM RAZD has responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 264 of 323 (811336)
06-07-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
06-05-2017 8:43 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
Being a dedicated evolutionist, I certainly share, nonetheless, the reationist’s opinion of the natural selection (NS) idea as of a substitution for the idea of God almighty. In my eyes, the idea of NS is one of the most preposterous in the history of science – just like phlogiston and universal aether. Perhaps, it is the most preposterous idea of them all…
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement – and a few more.
RAZD ardently insists that NS takes place in reality – and I fully agree. Indeed, there operates NS among gene alleles, in populations with sexual reproduction. NS among populations also operates - to the bad or to the good.
Yet the thing is that there is no Darwinian NS, in the world of sex. A well known circumstance – for instance, see good Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, chapter 3). And not only Dawkins… So there is no Darwinian NS, yet Darwinian evolution happily proceeds. How very amusing.
And the final stroke: biological evolution needs no natural selection at all… This paradoxical circumstance is also well known long since. Enjoy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 8:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 06-07-2017 9:50 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:33 PM Vlad has responded
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 06-07-2017 3:39 PM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 290 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2017 9:19 AM Vlad has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 265 of 323 (811337)
06-07-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
^^^ Well that's a whole pile of jumbled words. Try explaining what you mean rather than making a heap of assertions.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 266 of 323 (811359)
06-07-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by CRR
06-01-2017 5:46 PM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
CRR writes:

The peppered moth is an example of equivocation used by evolutionists.
Evolution is true because we have witnessed evolution in the Peppered Moth.

[All living forms have come from a single common ancestor] is true because we have witnessed [a change in frequency of existing traits in a population over time] in the Peppered Moth.

Where did any of us ever say that?

We say that common ancestry is true because of evidence, such as the correlation between morphological and molecular phylogenies. What we do is observe how random mutations and natural selection impact modern species. We observe that these mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy in living species. Therefore, we look for evidence of nested hierarchies, otherwise known as phylogenies. That is the evidence. It isn't an equivocation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by CRR, posted 06-01-2017 5:46 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 267 of 323 (811360)
06-07-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:03 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:

No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.

Since no one ever proposed a God of Selection it was dead in post 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:03 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 268 of 323 (811362)
06-07-2017 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:

Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause.

First, we do know which mutations are responsible for the differences in color for peppered moths.

Second, the better example is the pocket mice because we do know that they spend time on black rocks and in the light brown desert. We also know the mutations within the Mcr1 gene that separate the two color populations.

Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth. You seem to be yet another anti-evolutionist who doesn't understand what evolution is. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. Evolution produces diversity amongst descendants. A rhesus monkey is a primate. A modern human is a primate. Our common ancestor was a primate. Humans and rhesus monkeys are examples of how primates started with one species and diversified into many primate species. It is primates from start to finish. Again, you don't evolve out of your ancestry.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 3:25 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 269 of 323 (811364)
06-07-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Davidjay
06-03-2017 6:10 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Davidjay writes:

Get real, its a selected color change.... by a brilliant God for these moths.

Why do [you] deny that predation by birds caused the changes in moth color in these populations?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 6:10 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:34 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19230
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 270 of 323 (811365)
06-07-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
Welcome to the fray Vlad

For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement – and a few more.

Please do, it should prove interesting.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

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


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 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM Vlad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017