Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒ Peppered Moths and Natural Selection ⇒

Summations Only

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 95 of 350 (261938)
11-21-2005 11:44 AM 		Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
11-21-2005 11:26 AM

Re: interchanging 'evolution' with 'the theory of evolution'
'evolution isn't a theory, since we can't see dinosaurs in the lab!!!"
​
sure you can.
​
​
they're just all dead.
​
אָרַח
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2005 11:26 AM Modulous has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 100 of 350 (262233)
11-22-2005 12:07 AM 		Reply to: Message 99 by randman
11-22-2005 12:01 AM

wait. i'm lost.
but bare assertions that "there is no reason to expect" is nothing but a bare assertion without documentation.
​
so your original statement is that no speciation event occured. right?
​
and now razd is saying that this article has the unreasonable expectation of a localized extinction (and therefor speciation).
​
and now you're saying that it is not unreasonable to have expected a speciation result?
​
{edit: and then you're using that unfulfilled expectation to do what, exactly? topple the strawman claim that speciation occured? is anyone even arguing here?}
​
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-22-2005 12:09 AM
​
אָרַח
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:01 AM randman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 102 of 350 (262238)
11-22-2005 12:14 AM 		Reply to: Message 101 by randman
11-22-2005 12:13 AM

Re: wait. i'm lost.
so it's not unreasonable to suggest that all light coloration patterns should disappear from the species?
​
אָרַח
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:13 AM randman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:18 AM arachnophilia has replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 104 of 350 (262244)
11-22-2005 12:25 AM 		Reply to: Message 103 by randman
11-22-2005 12:18 AM

Re: wait. i'm lost.
no no, i'm just asking what you are arguing.
​
The definitive fact for me is that the same thing happened where there were no sooty tree trunks. So blaming sooty tree trunks is wrong.
​
that may be the case, yes. but does that mean it was not variation in the frequency of heritable features by means of natural selection?
​
אָרַח
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:18 AM randman has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 151 of 350 (347625)
09-08-2006 8:37 PM 		Reply to: Message 140 by Quetzal
09-08-2006 10:44 AM

Re: It's quite obvious...
Peppered moths, sigh, no, they don't show evolution.
​
Right, we know that. However, the observations DO quite clearly show how natural selection acting on variations in a population can change the frequency of alleles in that population.
​
i hate to be a pain, but that's the definition of "evolution."
​
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 10:44 AM Quetzal has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 9:00 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 156 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 10:07 PM arachnophilia has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 164 of 350 (347728)
09-09-2006 1:04 AM 		Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
09-08-2006 9:00 PM

Re: It's quite obvious...
Seriously though, SWC had said it was "microevolution" not "macroevolution" so the better response would have been "no, they don't show macroevolution"
​
oh, yes, i keep forgetting that creationists opperate under the assumption that 1+1≠2. sorry, my mistake.
​
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 9:00 PM RAZD has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2006 7:49 AM arachnophilia has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024