Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Theory of Evolution
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 63 (18209)
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


I am going to attempt to state the general theory of evolution in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.
1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.
2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.
3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.
4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.
5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)
8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.
Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.
This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.
If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 5:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-25-2002 8:02 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 4 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-25-2002 1:49 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 09-25-2002 5:08 PM Defiant Heretic has replied
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2002 6:17 PM Defiant Heretic has replied
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 11:27 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 09-27-2002 5:16 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 63 (18329)
09-26-2002 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
09-25-2002 5:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
One of my more significant disapprobation's to your post would be your use of reference toward 'organisms' evolving though inheritance and the guidance of natural selectability. A more appropriate and accurate wording would be a 'population' in the majority of its context.
Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, I was referring to populations here. I’m sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 09-25-2002 5:08 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (18331)
09-26-2002 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
09-25-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Interpretation: I am going to perpetuate the illusion of evolution using the equivocation method of debate as described on page 1 of my evo-handbook.
Actually, I don’t have an evo-handbook yet. Do you know where I could find one?
quote:
Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism, and placed a solid barrier on upward evolution (FYI, Mendel was a creationist). It forced
evolutionists to embrace random mutation (LOL!) as the root mechanism to create the new genetic information necessary to evolve new complexities. It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution (I suppose that is why Darwin espoused Lamarckism, and why some evolutionists still cling to the Lamarck fairytale today).
I fail to see how this is relevant. If I’m not mistaken, Mendel helped discover how dominant and recessive traits factor into genetics. And although some people may cling to the Lamarckian view, I do not, and even if I did, it would have nothing to do with this thread.
quote:
Item 2b is incorrect, regardless of whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.
I meant its traits won’t be included in the next generation unless another organism contributes them.
quote:
ROTFL! The classic mistake of defining selection as a tautology!
I did say I would be stating the obvious at times. Some redundancy is bound to result.
quote:
Here DH engages in question begging (specifically item #7). He skips over an important problem— how did the chameleon get the ability to
camouflage? DH assumes evolution is true and expects us to not catch this glaring omission. It’s all part of the illusion of the power of selection. Yet selection can only work with *pre-existing* traits! Where did this trait come from? This question is at the root of the C/E debate, yet DH tries to skip right over it, to the praise and adoration of his peers here on this board.
Yes, I do skip over that, because it’s not the issue here. I am merely arguing that evolution happens, not how it happens. No matter where the traits came from in the first place, whether they are the result of random mutation, divine intervention, or something else, beneficial traits become more common and detrimental traits become less common. This post is mainly directed at anyone who believes that [/I]no [/I]evolution has occurred at all, including micro-evolution.
quote:
This is precisely natural selection (provided you add more before beneficial & detrimental). Please discard your previous tautological arguments.
Yes, this is natural selection. How exactly does that make it a tautology?
quote:
And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true!
Perhaps you could elaborate on which part of this is illusionary.
quote:
This is the current state of thinking in our schools, and it is quite sad. Logic gets thrown out the window for the sake of the sacred cow of evolution.
Please post the logic you are referring to.
quote:
On the other hand, I can provide a ton of evidence that the opposite is true, that new detrimental traits are outpacing new beneficial traits in organisms.
They may indeed be outpacing beneficial traits, however most likely they are not outlasting them. If your evidence suggests that they are, then by all means, feel free to post some of it.
quote:
quote:
If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.
The problem is, you did not properly state the usual evolutionist re-definition illusion correctly above. You could have kept the illusion simple, as most evolutionists do: evolution is allele frequency change over time. The capitulation and equivocation is complete!
My intention here was to define general evolution/natural selection without leaving loopholes in the definition. One place where I was quite clear is the paragraph you just quoted. I asked you to state which premise, if any, you disagree with, and to post your references. You have done neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2002 6:17 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2002 2:49 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024