Natural Selection - not natural?

Again, the problem is defining "thing".How do you define "thing" in this case so I can determine if I've bred one thing into another thing, or simply a different version of the thing?

Yet if we call it that which "thing" allows us to call it - then there seems to be a meaning. For example, we get many apples, yet they always become apples. It is an "undefinable" truth if you like. You know what I mean - but it's hard to explain. But surely you see what I'm getting at?For example - we get humans, yet apparently and mostly this seems to be the case. But then - evolution takes long. Shucks --> This one will forever baffle me. Cos evos say "define k**d" and creos say "time is their healer". I need an honest shmuck!

Surely there is some kind of mechanism which keeps us producing the same things? Does evolution just overturn this mechanism?

I like to think I am both honest and a schmuck.Hopefully you understand that me asking you to define "thing" is not an evo ploy. If anything, using a nebulous term like "kind" or "thing" is a creo ploy - it is very easy to assert that changes only occur within kind if you never define what kind is, since noone can ever provide an example to refute a definition that does not exist.When asking for a definition, I've received two types of answers:1) A definition related to "species", that, once the definer is given an example of one species producing another, is retracted.2) Nebulous mumbo-jumbo, such as: The problem is, no, I do not see what you're getting at, and there is no way for me to refute your "you-know-what-I-mean" definition.Perhaps my new argumentative stance should be something like:"Evolution is an "undefinable" truth if you like. You know what I mean - but it's hard to explain. But surely you see what I'm getting at?"

There is a thread devoted to this called something like "Limits to Macroevolution" - perhaps you'd like to revive...No one came up with a mechanism as you describe.

Yet you know what an apple is - and a human. You're assuming I am seeking to use "kind". It's not that I am, and even if it is a useless term biologically speaking, you're being dishonest if you say you don't know what I mean by an apple producing an apple.If this is not the case in nature - do show me an instance where something "else" has came about (in this age). THAT is what I saying. I wasn't defending kind - as a fence-sitter(somewhat) - I was explaining what I see as "truth". But hey - if you don't know what an apple is - fair enough.Here's what I said;"It is an "undefinable" truth if you like. You know what I mean - but it's hard to explain. But surely you see what I'm getting at?"When explaining about say an apple, and how it produces - erm, apples. What? You don't understand?

What about DNA? Aren't we made from our parents?Evolution would have to "break" this somehow - wouldn't it?Surely that's just an observation from reality? But no - you think I am arguing for creos.PS - it's my topic, so don't give me the ol' - there's another forum babble! It's you who's starting the old broken record of kinds!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-09-2004 06:47 PM

Do we keep producing the same thing?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Evolution "breaks" this by random mutation.
We are not just the sum of our parents DNA, we are the sum of our parents DNA plus random mutation.I = Dad + Mom + Random Mutation.

---

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

All biological life is based on the inheritance of DNA - I'm not sure how you are saying "DNA" would prevent one "thing" becoming another.When a new species arises, it still has parents - it is just reproductively isolated from them (but I don't think you are talking about species here...)Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "break this somehow"... What is being broken?

We produce half-momma half-poppa right?Listen - don't be unperceptive like some others Jar - you know me better. I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm asking about the reality of nature - yet no-one will be honest. They haven't the bravery to say something against their god evolution. If it is truly as unbreakable as they say it is - why do they fear so much concerning a fence-sitters questions?All I am asking about - is what we "see". If you don't think apples look alike - fair enough.

You may not be using the biblical "kind", but your usage and definitions (or lack thereof) match nearly word-for-word "kind" arguments I've had in the past. How am I being dishonest if you can't even provide a simple definition, and have to resort to "You know what I mean - but it's hard to explain. But surely you see what I'm getting at?"Is an apple another "thing" than a crabapple? What about a Fuji apple vs. a Granny Smith? Or apples and oranges? Argh! What were you saying?And you'll hate me for saying this, but define "else".If you can't tell me what "something else" means, how can I show you that it came about?I'm not going to come up with examples to disprove a definition that doesn't exist.

I am being honest, it is rude to say otherwise.You fail to provide a definition, yet ask me to give you examples of it - that is problematic. Have you been to a grocery store lately? The myriad of colors, sizes, shapes, tastes, and smells of apples is amazing.So I'll say, no, not all apples look alike...

I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying. You're not getting through.Let me ask again, do we continue to produce the same?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If you don't think apples look alike - fair enough

---

I don't think all apples look alike, and the U.S. Apple Association seems to agree with me:
Page not found - USAppleI'm sorry, it's late here, so I don't seem to understand the argument entirely. Are you asking for an example of evolution above the level of the genus?

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon
Roman's drum blog