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 3:32 PM
360 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,356 Year: 23,962/21,208 Month: 1,927/2,468 Week: 20/416 Day: 20/24 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 271 of 323 (811366)
06-07-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Taq
06-07-2017 12:31 PM


Facing reality is difficult for some
Why do deny that predation by birds caused the changes in moth color in these populations?

Because he wants to get your goat? Or he just can't face reality.

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 269 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:31 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 272 of 323 (811386)
06-07-2017 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
Vlad writes:

Being a dedicated evolutionist....


Apparently not.

Vlad writes:

In my eyes, the idea of NS is one of the most preposterous in the history of science – just like phlogiston and universal aether.


Neither of those is preposterous. They just turned out to be wrong.

Vlad writes:

Darwinian....


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

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


Message 273 of 323 (811439)
06-08-2017 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Taq
06-07-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Taq writes:

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth.


Similarly;
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2017 4:38 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 5:54 AM CRR has responded
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:40 AM CRR has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 274 of 323 (811440)
06-08-2017 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CRR
06-08-2017 3:20 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish

What's your point? None of us disagree with any of this. All children are the same kind of animal as their parents and grandparents.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 275 of 323 (811441)
06-08-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CRR
06-08-2017 3:20 AM


rate of change
Taq writes:

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth.


Similarly;
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.

I think we are confusing something here, and that is the rate at which populations change.

This started in Message 256 with this comment of yours:

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.

Which implies that you are saying a moth will never give birth to a "new type of moth, let alone a non-moth" ... and this is because we are talking about selection over one or two generations between varieties of a particular moth.

This is not what evolution says will happen, but it is a common creationist misconception.

Evolution says that members of a breeding population will always breed with other members of a breeding population and that they will produce the next generation within that breeding population.

A fish population evolving into an amphibian population takes (took) many generations
A amphibian population evolving into a reptile population takes (took) many generations
A reptile population evolving into a mammal population takes (took) many generations

In each generation the breeding population is (was) one common species within their ecology, but the traits of those populations change over time, as seen in Pelycodus and Foraminifera and other examples, gradually modifying the whole population. The more modification you want to see the longer it takes.

At no point do we expect offspring of the breeding population to be entirely different from the breeding population.

ALL we are expecting in this thread about selection is a change in frequency of hereditary traits from one generation to the next. Traits that exist in the breeding 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 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 276 of 323 (811444)
06-08-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by RAZD
06-07-2017 12:33 PM


Biston betularia
Well, I’ll try and conscientiously lay my few theses bare. Yet, primarily I am to comment on the notorious Biston betularia subject. Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles. In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. At that, it remained the same Biston betularia while the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?

A river adapts to the terrain, a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what? The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all. Says one evolutionary theorist: “...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved?” (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks And the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2013).

As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), the processes of speciation are irreversible. In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex. Incidentally, the fundamental work is titled “On the Origin of Species...” and not “On the Adaptation of Populations...” And if microevolution were true evolution, then tide and ebb would be evolution as well.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by JonF, posted 06-08-2017 9:50 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 278 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2017 10:12 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:46 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 281 by ringo, posted 06-08-2017 12:03 PM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 2:44 PM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 283 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2017 4:27 PM Vlad has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3962
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 277 of 323 (811445)
06-08-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Evolution must be irreversible?

Who knew?

Mutations are reversible.

Therefore evolution is reversible (although reversing is rare).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 278 of 323 (811446)
06-08-2017 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Vlad writes:

Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles.

Good, that's a start. It's also worth adding that we now know that the selection wasn't just from existing genes, it was from a gene that had mutated - a beneficial mutation.

In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. At that, it remained the same Biston betularia

Yeh, it stayed a moth; that's what microevolution is.

while the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?

Well unless there's something magical about a peppered moth, it got here through a process of evolution like all other life on earth.

Are you trying to say that speciation is impossible?


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 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

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


Message 279 of 323 (811447)
06-08-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CRR
06-08-2017 3:20 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.

Our ancestors were jawed vertebrates, and we are jawed vertebrates. Still in the same kind.

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.

Our ancestors were tetrapods, and we are still tetrapods.

Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.

Our ancestors were amniotes, and we are still amniotes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:30 PM Taq has responded

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


Message 280 of 323 (811450)
06-08-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Vlad writes:

At that, it remained the same Biston betularia while the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?

We are discussing natural selection, not speciation. Those are two different things. The evolution and origin of species requires many different mechanisms, of which natural selection is one. It is unfair to study one mechanism in isolation and expect it to recapitulate all of evolution.

The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all.

Natural selection of a single pair of alleles is reversible, but what isn't reversible is the overall evolution of the species. Again, natural selection is not the whole of evolution. Once you add random mutations then you will see an irreversible evolution of the species' genome since those mutations will accumulate over time. Focusing on just one phenotype ignores all of the other phenotypes and certainly ignores genotype of functional elements as well as nonfunctional DNA.

As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), the processes of speciation are irreversible. In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex.

I would say that macroevolution begins with speciation. Microevolution starts with at least a pair of alleles whose frequencies are changed due to selective pressures. One could even argue that microevolution begins with the mutation that caused the initial difference in fitness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 281 of 323 (811470)
06-08-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Vlad writes:

The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all.


That's like saying that going from New York to LA and then back to New York isn't travelling at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 282 of 323 (811475)
06-08-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Well, I’ll try and conscientiously lay my few theses bare. ...

Good, always good to state your position.

... Yet, primarily I am to comment on the notorious Biston betularia subject. Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles. In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. ...

Actually the thread is about selection, and Biston betularia is just one of many examples of selection. The difference between light and dark is a mutation that caused the dark variety Biston betularia carbonaria to diverge from the light Biston betularia typica variety.

... At that, it remained the same Biston betularia ...

The varieties interbreed so they remain one species, but now with two alleles, one for dark as well as one for light forms. Selection changes the proportion of dark and white varieties in two different ecologies, one with soot and one without. This allowed the species to survive through the sooty period, which may not have happened otherwise.

The change in proportions is documented and it shows statistically significant selection occurring on the light variety in the sooty ecology, decreasing their numbers compared to the dark variety, and it shows statistically significant selection occurring on the dark variety in the normal ecology, decreasing their numbers compared to the white variety.

... the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?

Ah, no, not for this thread -- it is about selection.

A river adapts to the terrain, ...

A river is not a living breeding population.

... a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what? ...

Again not a living breeding population.

Non-sequiturs are not evidence regarding evolution or any of it's processes.

... The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, ...

Indeed, as we see with the change to dark and return to light proportions in the Biston betularia population.

... and therefore they represent no evolution at all. ...

Wrong. It represents selection, and that is all that it is intended to represent. Complaining about it not representing speciation or macroevolution or some other processes of evolution is irrelevant.

... Says one evolutionary theorist: “...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved?” (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks And the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2013).

Ah, so you are using an opening discussion on the definition of evolution to misrepresent his position here regarding selection ...

It's called quote mining. A typically evil kind of creationist lie. It seems you entirely missed the points he was making about evolution as descent with modification ... and not about evolution with back and forth selection.

Creationists seem to read for "gotcha" quote mines, while normal people read for comprehension and understanding.

Your implication by quote-mine, is that we never get anywhere, and this is where you go wrong. Dawkins likened evolution to a drunken walk, staggering back and forth but proceeding in the long run to move down the road.

As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), ...

Another assertion without support, while the one about "Darwinian NS" is left dangling without any further presentation of your argument

... the processes of speciation are irreversible. ...

Not quite true. There are many instances where budding daughter populations meld back into the general population, and there are instances where they interbreed and form hybrids with the benefits of both daughter population's adaptations.

In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex. ...

Macroevolution begins with speciation in both sexual species and asexual species. This is the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations, but the actual divergence from the common ancestor population in the daughter populations occurs by microevolution generation after generation (anagenesis).

... Incidentally, the fundamental work ...

There's a fundamental work? Who knew. Are we supposed to pray to it every night and cut off the heads of unbelievers? That seems to be the general behavior of every group that professes to have a fundamental work ...

... is titled “On the Origin of Species...”

Actually the full title is "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"

... and not “On the Adaptation of Populations...”

And it doesn't need to be in the title to be in the book. This is a rather amusing argument that is really to no avail -- evolution today is more that what we began with in the 1860's with Darwin and Wallace (and others). Science builds on science and expands knowledge with new discoveries -- and that is why there is no "fundamental work" ...

... And if microevolution were true evolution, ...

Curiously ALL evolution is microevolution, it all occurs within breeding populations, accumulating changes over generations. Your failure to recognize this is not my problem -- blame your education (or lack of it).

... then tide and ebb would be evolution as well.

And Again, not a breeding population.

All you demonstrate with such comments is a profound lack of understanding of evolution, arguing against silly straw men fallacies.

The message you are replying to here is:

Message 270: 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

Curiously I see nothing in this post that backs up your claim that "Darwinian NS is ... just random process."

Actually I am not surprised in the slightest that you failed to attempt to substantiate your claim before making other equally ridiculous claims.

You've done the typical creationist ramble instead, trying to divert attention away from your failure by bring up other things that are off topic or ridiculous.

So ...can you substantiate your impetuous claim that "Darwinian NS is ... just random process" ... or can we agree that you don't know what you are talking about?

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 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 283 of 323 (811477)
06-08-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
A river adapts to the terrain, a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what?

We know exactly why a fluid conforms to the shape of its vessel. We can analyze how that happens using physics.

So in the case of a moth, how does conforming to the environment happen? What is the mechanism? We know the genetic difference between black and white moths. So where did those new black moths come from? How are gene alleles selected by the environment since that is your proposed method?

If you cannot find a question worthy of a real answer in there somewhere you are either a genius or a fool.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not yet responded

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


Message 284 of 323 (811483)
06-08-2017 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
06-08-2017 5:54 AM


Re: rate of change
A fish population evolving into an amphibian population takes (took) many generations
A amphibian population evolving into a reptile population takes (took) many generations
A reptile population evolving into a mammal population takes (took) many generations

Correct. That is what evolution says.
So over time the descendant of fish can become a non-fish, and the descendant of a moth a non-moth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 5:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 6:28 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 6:21 AM CRR has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 285 of 323 (811485)
06-08-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:25 PM


Re: rate of change
CRR writes:

So over time the descendant of fish can become a non-fish

Over time, a jawed vertebrate ancestor evolved into a jawed vertebrate descendant (i.e. Sarcopterygii).

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017