Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 2:44 PM
383 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,244 Year: 18,850/21,208 Month: 1,609/3,111 Week: 404/707 Day: 100/78 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
CRR
Member
Posts: 430
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 286 of 323 (811486)
06-08-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Taq
06-08-2017 10:40 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Our ancestors were jawed vertebrates, and we are jawed vertebrates. Still in the same kind.

And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?

Edited by CRR, : Re-written


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:40 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 6:26 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 10:40 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 287 of 323 (811540)
06-09-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:25 PM


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.

Just not in the time-frame of the peppered moth study.

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 284 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:25 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 288 of 323 (811541)
06-09-2017 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:30 PM


your inner fish
And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?

You might want to watch this excellent series

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/

but I'm wondering what your point is, going further back in time. We've had 3+ billion years to evolve life on earth -- that's a LOT of generations.

and if you dispute that age you can return to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and struggle past the oak data...

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 286 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:30 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 289 of 323 (811554)
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Random NS
All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back; “so what has evolved?” Says one evolutionary philosopher: “Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean”. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] Contrariwise, irreversibility, unidirectionality means that successive accumulation of changes takes place – the necessary feature of Darwinian evolution.
Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of “evolution”. Well, everybody chooses for himself. At that, Modern Synthesis (still “modern” being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg – beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on. A shame.
Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It “…does not plan for the future … has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all”. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]
Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: “...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do”. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]
We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).
Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 9:27 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 10:45 AM Vlad has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 290 of 323 (811560)
06-09-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM


Life in a void?
Vlad writes:

And the final stroke: biological evolution needs no natural selection at all… This paradoxical circumstance is also well known long since. Enjoy.

Which functions would be retained?

In which void could it take place?

Virtual self-replicators in a void would have no function, and all variants would be equal. They would change over time in a completely random fashion. That's evolution without NS.

Chemical self-replicators can only exist in a physical environment in which they must have function, and variants will not all be equal, so environmental influence (natural selection) is inevitable in a life system.


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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 291 of 323 (811562)
06-09-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Vlad
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Re: Random NS and more BS
All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back; “so what has evolved?” Says one evolutionary philosopher: “Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean”. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] Contrariwise, irreversibility, unidirectionality means that successive accumulation of changes takes place – the necessary feature of Darwinian evolution.

So now you are quote mining statements about the stasis part of punctuated evolution.

See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution:

quote:
Stasis

From (an abundance of) this kind of evidence one can conclude that sexual selection involves actively (whether consciously or not) choosing mates that best represent {the species icon} based on visual, olfactory and behavioral clues, where {the species icon} represents the "ideal mate" not just for the individual but for the population.

If we assume {the species icon} represents average values of features within the population, then in the absence of survival selection pressure within a species population, this active choice mechanism will lead to choosing the more "average" individuals for mates (and excluding the least normal individuals) whenever possible, a process that will essentially guarantee stasis within the species population.

This is observed in many species, and in humans there are several theories on the issue of "beauty" but one of the consistent factors involved is that the more beautiful faces are averaged (see average face-ness: click) -- more on this in humans later.

Of course these individuals would also be healthy and well fit to the ecological niche they occupy, but the reason they are allowed to reproduce is because they are chosen as sexually suitable mates.


With no selection pressure and no ecological change, the population becomes optimized for the ecology and selection occurs to maintain that optimum condition.

Evolution still occurs (mutation and selection) but the selection is to remain on the mountain top and not descend into the valley.

But this emphasis of yours ignores the punctuation of that equilibrium stasis, when new species arise that are better fit for a wider ecology, evolving outside the area dominated by the parent population, and they move in and slowly replace (or merge with) existing species.

Examples of this are shown in Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium:

quote:
One of the problems that creationists seem to have with evolution is how new species can disburse and displace existing species. This is especially true for the punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") model of Gould and Eldridge. This article is to discuss the dispersal aspects of small populations into a new environment, removing the issue of new species evolution from the discussion.

Bird species introduced into North America, both intentionally and accidentally, have shown different levels of dispersal across the continent. In some cases we know that they had only small initial populations located in one place, the point of release. We also know that they were not here before being introduced. Thus such species are good models for new species dispersal behavior into a new environment.

(1) European House Sparrow
(2) European Starling
(3) English Skylark
(4) Crested Myna
(5) Chukar
(6) Budgerigar
(7) Rose-ringed Parakeets

Conclusions

Thus we see two extremely successful dispersions and others of limited success and finally some that succeeded only to lose out to later competition. Obviously not all introductions are successful, and just as obviously not all newly evolved species will win out in similar circumstances.

Native species are being impacted by the "successful" introductions (Starlings and House Sparrows) but they are still viable at this time (probably most impacted is the Eastern Bluebird). There was no eco-niche vacuum for the newcomers to fill and there was competition, but they have been able to disperse across the continent.

Any one of these would have appeared "suddenly" and "without any transitions" in the fossil record.

(Once a new species has evolved it could disperse in much the same way, and if they evolved in isolation in a small area or an area that didn't make fossils then there would be no record of any transitions).


Ignoring the punk part of punk-eek to make a false claim with the stassis part is quote mining again, and it is lying by omission.

Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of “evolution”. Well, everybody chooses for himself. ...

Only creationists cherry-pick information (as you have done and are doing), while scientists look at ALL the data.

Your failure to use ALL the data means that your "explanation" is half vast and of little real value.

At that, Modern Synthesis (still “modern” being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg – beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on. A shame.

Actually science has moved beyond the "Modern Synthesis" ... creationists do like to stay in the dark ages.

You list microevolution but not the other leg of your absurd claim.

There is no distinction between the microevolution and evolution, and the Theory of Evolution can be stated as:

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, 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.

Where both anagenesis and cladogenesis occur via microevolution over several generations.

Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It “…does not plan for the future … has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all”. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]

Which is still no argument that natural selection does not occur -- that was your claim ...

Natural selection operates in the present, and it is only concerned with the present populations in their present ecology. Needing a plan, vision or foresight is a common misconception of creationists.

Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: “...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do”. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]

Curiously all you show is an example of selection working, not a lack of it. AND it is still no argument that natural selection does not occur -- that was your claim ...

We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).

More paragraph breaks would improve your posts readability.

So far a lot of blather and bluster but no real evidence of your claim.

btw -- can you explain what you mean by "Darwinian NS" versus the way "Natural Selection" is used by actual scientists?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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 289 by Vlad, posted 06-09-2017 8:16 AM Vlad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 06-09-2017 9:44 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 292 of 323 (811563)
06-09-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
06-09-2017 9:27 AM


Re: Random NS and more BS
Is this "my other brother Darryl"? Haven't we been down this path before?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 9:27 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 293 of 323 (811576)
06-09-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:30 PM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:

And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?

That would be a vertebrate common ancestor evolving into two lineages of vertebrate descendants. Still in the same kind.

If you are unsure about these things then tolweb.org would be a great benefit to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:30 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 294 of 323 (811578)
06-09-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Vlad
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Re: Random NS
Vlad writes:

All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back;

Microevolution is still evolution. Walking to the curb is microwalking, and walking to the store is macrowalking. Both are walking.

Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of “evolution”. Well, everybody chooses for himself. At that, Modern Synthesis (still “modern” being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg – beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on.

The other leg is the emergence of new features due to random mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Vlad, posted 06-09-2017 8:16 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 295 of 323 (811655)
06-10-2017 8:18 AM


Random Darwinian NS
I am afraid RAZD (see post 291) is going to throw a tantrum… A pity, still I am to go on with my theses – including this of spontaneous evolution being altogether in no need of natural selection.

Incidentally, Darwinist Douglas Futuyma identifies Darwinian NS as a selection among individuals. [Evolution, 2005, p. 406] Anybody objects? And let me recall that Darwinian NS is non-existent, in the world of sexual reproduction (to be duly substantiated).

Yet, in the world of asexual prokaryotes, Darwinian NS happily operates, and under its pressure the type 2s bacteria are finally exterminated. Please, notice, that selection among individuals, in the world of asexual reproduction, operates alongside with that selection among clones. Simple and nice.

Well, let bygone be bygone. The process of Darwinian NS is irreversible. Then suppose that later the professor Orr’s bio-community is invaded by severe viral infection, and type 1s bacteria are wholly exterminated. At that, the type 2s bacteria were highly resistant to this very virus, and surely would live through the infection. Alas, the short-sighted NS already has eliminated the type, operating here and now.

Besides, professor Orr doesn’t notice that Darwinian NS, in his exercise, only erases genetic information – quite valuable, at times. At that, selection creates no new genetic information. A shame.

The above exercise is duly generalized in the theory of optimal control. Once a process, first, develops within ever changing environment, second, is irreversible, and decisions, third, are taken myopically, then the process would inevitably advance chaotically and ramble randomly. The prose of cybernetics. Darwinian NS qualifies for all the conditions mentioned, and therefore it operates quite randomly – in the long range.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.


Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2017 8:38 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2017 6:09 AM Vlad has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4872
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 296 of 323 (811656)
06-10-2017 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Vlad
06-10-2017 8:18 AM


Re: Random Darwinian NS
Vlad writes:

And let me recall that Darwinian NS is non-existent, in the world of sexual reproduction (to be duly substantiated).

Peppered moth.

Besides, professor Orr doesn’t notice that Darwinian NS, in his exercise, only erases genetic information – quite valuable, at times. At that, selection creates no new genetic information. A shame.

Peppered moth.


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 295 by Vlad, posted 06-10-2017 8:18 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18767
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 297 of 323 (811724)
06-11-2017 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Vlad
06-10-2017 8:18 AM


MORE "Darwinian NonSense" and MORE BS
I am afraid RAZD (see post 291) is going to throw a tantrum…

Ah yes, the old attack the messenger approach of a losing argument, the bottom of the barrel when you have no argument to present that counters what was posted refuting your latest claims. Next up more BS. Likely based on more quote mining and misrepresentation.

Incidentally, Darwinist Douglas Futuyma identifies Darwinian NS as a selection among individuals. [Evolution, 2005, p. 406] Anybody objects?

What's a Darwinist?

What's Darwinian NS compared to plain ordinary vanilla NS?

It is a typical ploy of creationists to confuse terminology and pretend it has a different definition than how it is used in science.

Can you cite Douglas Futuyma saying he is a "Darwinist" and that there is "Darwinian NS" that differs from other NS?

Can you answer any question put to you without dodging into another rambling non-answer?

And let me recall that Darwinian NS is non-existent ...

Given that there evidently is no scientific definition of "Darwinian NS" (you have failed to present one) this would seem to be an empty straw man argument.

... in the world of sexual reproduction (to be duly substantiated).

Curiously promises are useless when you could take the same time you took on this post to actually do it.

Yet, in the world of asexual prokaryotes, Darwinian NS happily operates ...

And again this statement is useless word salad until you define what you mean by "Darwinian NS" ... and show that your definition is actually used -- or useful -- in science as something of significant difference from plain vanilla Natural Selection.

... operates, and under its pressure the type 2s bacteria are finally exterminated. Please, notice, that selection among individuals, in the world of asexual reproduction, operates alongside with that selection among clones. Simple and nice.

and how is this different from plain vanilla "Natural Selection" as used in science with no "Darwinian" qualifier? It seems you are making a distinction without a difference.

Then suppose that later the professor Orr’s bio-community is invaded by severe viral infection, and type 1s bacteria are wholly exterminated. At that, the type 2s bacteria were highly resistant to this very virus, and surely would live through the infection. Alas, the short-sighted NS already has eliminated the type, operating here and now.

Yep, evolution, including mutation and selection, does not "plan" ... and that does lead to extinction when there are no survivors. Has any scientist in evolution or ecology said otherwise?

Besides, professor Orr doesn’t notice that Darwinian NS, in his exercise, only erases genetic information – quite valuable, at times. At that, selection creates no new genetic information. A shame.

Curiously no scientist has ever claimed that selection creates new genetic "information" (another term you now need to define in order to use it in a science forum argument ... it seems you keep piling up non-sense non-scientific pseudo jargon to hide a lack of argument or understanding).

You really are stellar at only presenting one side of a scientific process and then pretend it is the whole thing.

Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Variation created by mutation, deleterious variations eliminated by selection, rinse, repeat.

Ignoring the other half of the picture does not make it go away, it just makes you seem ignorant about it.

The above exercise is duly generalized in the theory of optimal control. ...

GIGO pretending to be communication.

... Once a process, first, develops within ever changing environment, second, is irreversible, and decisions, third, are taken myopically, then the process would inevitably advance chaotically and ramble randomly. The prose of cybernetics. ...

Saying it doesn't make it so, you need to provide actual evidence of this happening, not just conjure speculation that it happens.

And, last time I checked "cybernetics" did not involve reproducing populations of biological organisms. You seem to have a lot of difficulty recognizing the difference of biological systems to non-biological systems.

Darwinian NS qualifies for all the conditions mentioned, and therefore it operates quite randomly – in the long range.

Ah, so that's your definition of "Darwinian NS" ... defined to be something that happens in cybernetic systems, not biological systems, and thus does not refer to what happens with the actual scientific biological natural selection.

Good to know.

But that also means you failed to defend your thesis that actual scientific biological natural selection is random.

So far you have made 4 posts on this thread saying nothing of value. Let's recap:

Message 264: Being a dedicated evolutionist, ...

Lie #1 -- you don't know what evolution is or how it operates.

... Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. ...

Lie #2 -- there is no such thing as "Darwinian NS" in evolution science. If you want to say I am wrong then provide a definition for it.

... I am ready to confirm this statement ...

Lie #3 -- you have done nothing to confirm your statement, all you have done is make assertions, not provide objective empirical evidence to substantiate your statement.

Message 276: ... 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. ...

A description that demonstrates ignorance or misunderstanding of the evolutionary processes involved (see Lie #1 above).

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. ...

Further demonstration that you don't understand biological evolution compared to physical changes.

... 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).

Lie #4 -- the lie of omission of context in an opening discussion of the definition of evolution.

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.

Further demonstration of a lack of understanding. Creationists can't help demonstrating their ignorance of how evolution actually works ... because they are ignorant of how it works.

Message 289: All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back; “so what has evolved?” Says one evolutionary philosopher: “Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean”. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] ...

Lie #5 -- another lie of omission of context in a discussion of punctuated equilibrium, omitting the periods of change.

Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of “evolution”. Well, everybody chooses for himself. At that, Modern Synthesis (still “modern” being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg – beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on. A shame.
Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It “…does not plan for the future … has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all”. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]
Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: “...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do”. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]
We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).

Further demonstration of ignorance and (willful?) misunderstanding.

You may think you have said something significant. You haven't. It's garbage pseudo-intellectual crap.

Notice also that you have posted no replies to the critiques of your posts, but just ramble on. Notice that you have not substantiated a single claim you have made or defined terms you use in spite of requests for you to do so.

This is not debate, an honest debate, it is preaching, and preaching ignorant nonsense full of misunderstanding, lies and deceit.

Why should I throw a tantrum when you make a fool of yourself?

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 295 by Vlad, posted 06-10-2017 8:18 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
Vlad
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 06-03-2017


Message 298 of 323 (811788)
06-12-2017 8:25 AM


Long range
We are definitely losing RAZD… A pity, he (she) is so amusing. And my conscionable advice to Taq: he (she) should iterate the mantra “microevolution is still evolution” 10 thousand times. Then perhaps the dream would come true.
Well, let’s get back to our muttons. Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random. The trouble is that Darwinists (those who still take Darwinian doctrine seriously) practice single-step thinking, so they do not discern observed appearances and hidden reality. A complete theoretical squalidity. Besides, military men know only too well that a succession of tactical decisions would never grow per se up to a strategy. No wonder, military men are reasonable and educated people…
Creationists believe in god almighty. Being unable to reason in the long range prospect, Darwinists believe in natural selection envisioned as a non-random process. This is one of the massed preconceptions that constitute the mainstream evolutionary model (MM). As adamant Darwinists, the MM theorists also believe that NS is the driving (and guiding) force of biological evolution. Thereto, the theorists believe – or pretend to do – that microevolution is in sooth evolution. Credo quia absurdum. Believing warms the heart…
Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:42 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 300 by bluegenes, posted 06-12-2017 9:47 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Taq, posted 06-12-2017 10:40 AM Vlad has not yet responded
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 06-12-2017 12:01 PM Vlad has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11532
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 299 of 323 (811789)
06-12-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Vlad
06-12-2017 8:25 AM


Re: Long range
You said a lot of words, but it was all opinion and no facts.

Natural selection is not random. The cheetah doesn't attack a random gazelle, it goes for the slow and weak ones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Vlad, posted 06-12-2017 8:25 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 300 of 323 (811805)
06-12-2017 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Vlad
06-12-2017 8:25 AM


Re: Long range
Vlad writes:

Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random.

So, let's look at the long term. You believe that complex eyes would evolve just as easily in the complete absence of light as they would in its presence, and that eyes would be equally well preserved, in the long term, in the absence of light as they would be in its presence.

Vlad writes:

Believing warms the heart…

Yours must be boiling over...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Vlad, posted 06-12-2017 8:25 AM Vlad has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017