Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 214 (366351)
11-27-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Syamsu
11-25-2006 11:46 AM


In reality Darwinists face identity-issues for themselves, conceiving of themselves as being at base organisms in a struggle for survival, in the context of natural selection. That they might conjure up something else besides that base is neither here nor there, the results are all properly classed as evolutionary moralities because of the basis. Even if for instance their belief is about going against selfish genes, then that is still an evolutionary morality about selfish genes.
I can make nothing of this. What do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Syamsu, posted 11-25-2006 11:46 AM Syamsu has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 214 (366352)
11-27-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
11-27-2006 3:48 PM


long post
but you said essentially nothing, except to show you failed either to understand or respond to anything I wrote. For someone calling other people ignorant, you are seriously lacking in grasping basic concepts.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2006 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2006 4:16 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 214 (366354)
11-27-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
11-27-2006 3:06 PM


Re: bait and switch tactics confirmed in your post
You should let the folks know at TalkOrigins know too.
I think they do.
"The reader is probably confusing a biology textbook's mention of embryological homology (which is indeed strong evidence for evolution) with advocacy of recapitulation. Recapitulation is an old, discarded concept, and I seriously doubt any current biology textbook discusses it except to expose its flaws." *
"He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct." *
"Finally, a mention of the influence of recapitulation theory is in order ... Haeckel's dream that we could reconstruct the primordial ancestor of a group of related organisms from the early embryos of those organisms is now entirely discredited." *
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 11-27-2006 3:06 PM randman has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 214 (366355)
11-27-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
11-27-2006 3:59 PM


Re: long post
but you said essentially nothing, except to show you failed either to understand or respond to anything I wrote.
To be precise, failure to understand it.
For someone calling other people ignorant, you are seriously lacking in grasping basic concepts.
Why is that?
Temper tantrum noted.
When I don't unterstand something, I try to find out more about it. In this case, this involves asking you to expand on your rather gnomic pronouncements.
I'll ask again: what do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-27-2006 3:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 11-27-2006 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 35 of 214 (366361)
11-27-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
11-27-2006 4:16 PM


Re: long post
You don't appear to be trying to learn anything, Dr Adequate. It seems you aren't getting some basic concepts, and I don't really have time to break them down again and again. It doesn't take a genuis, for example, to understand the point that since natural selection limits genetic diversity and macroevolution requires an expansion of genetic diversity, that positing natural selection as an effective mechanism or better yet as an actual instance of observing "evolution" is not an empirically-based assertion, and yet it lies at the heart of evo arguments.
Take some time to learn about things and then respond. Reread what I wrote, and then maybe you can respond intelligently instead of hurling senseless barbs.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2006 4:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 8:27 AM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 214 (366459)
11-28-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
11-27-2006 4:50 PM


Evolution 101
You don't appear to be trying to learn anything, Dr Adequate. It seems you aren't getting some basic concepts, and I don't really have time to break them down again and again. It doesn't take a genuis, for example, to understand the point that since natural selection limits genetic diversity and macroevolution requires an expansion of genetic diversity, that positing natural selection as an effective mechanism or better yet as an actual instance of observing "evolution" is not an empirically-based assertion, and yet it lies at the heart of evo arguments.
Let me explain the basics of evolution to you, then you'll have no excuse for getting it wrong.
Mutations increase genetic diversity.
Natural selection tends to preserve those genes which are adaptive, and remove those genes which are maladaptive.
Natural selection therefore permits increased diversity so long as it is adaptive (or neutral).
The reason for the diversity of life is mutation. The reason that these diverse forms are suited to their diverse niches in nature is natural selection.
It's no good you complaining that natural selection doesn't increase genetic diversity. Of course it doesn't; no-one has claimed that it does.
Is there anything there you didn't understand?
---
Here's a hint for you, as you wend your way through life. When your understanding of some scientific issue conflicts with that of scientists, the chances are that they've got it right and you've got it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by randman, posted 11-27-2006 4:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 11:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 214 (366487)
11-28-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2006 8:27 AM


your snide attitude is ignorant
Please show the empirical, peer-reviewed studies that verify the rate of beneficial mutations is greater than the limiting effects of reproductive and geographical isolation, natural selection, subspeciation/variation or speciation, and the other factors involved with microevolution....
If you cannot, then admit you have been advancing a fairy-tale and shut the heck up and learn something from those smarter and better educated than you. Your schtick pretending that I and people like myself don't understand evolutionary theory is getting old. Thus far, you appear to be the ignorant one here, failing to understand evo models as well as criticisms of it.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 8:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 11:53 AM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 214 (366496)
11-28-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
11-28-2006 11:19 AM


Creationists don't get to decide what the theory of evolution is
No-one claims that natural selection increases genetic diversity.
This is because (a) it doesn't (b) scientists aren't stupid.
Please bear in mind that any scientific fact that you know is also known to scientists.
Please show the empirical, peer-reviewed studies that verify the rate of beneficial mutations is greater than the limiting effects of reproductive and geographical isolation, natural selection, subspeciation/variation or speciation, and the other factors involved with microevolution....
How are you measuring these quantities, and why does it seem to you to be important that one should be greater than the other?
NB: please ensure that your inequallity is dimensionally correct.
Thus far, you appear to be the ignorant one here, failing to understand evo models as well as criticisms of it.
And yet I know that the theory of evolution does not involve claiming that natural selection increases genetic diversity; and you, it seems, do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 11:19 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 12:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 214 (366500)
11-28-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2006 11:53 AM


Re: Creationists don't get to decide what the theory of evolution is
So you can't answer and try to cover up the inadequacy of your position (having on empirical evidence) with utter bull-crap.
OK. You concede defeat here.
Come back when you at least understand the criticism and can explain why observed microevolutionary processes that decrease genetic diversity should rightly be considered part of a process increasing genetic diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 11:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 1:00 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 214 (366516)
11-28-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
11-28-2006 12:03 PM


Re: Creationists don't get to decide what the theory of evolution is
So you can't answer and try to cover up the inadequacy of your position (having on empirical evidence) with utter bull-crap.
OK. You concede defeat here.
Could you try to be truthful?
Come back when you at least understand the criticism and can explain why observed microevolutionary processes that decrease genetic diversity should rightly be considered part of a process increasing genetic diversity.
If you mean: why should natural selection ("processes that decrease genetic diversity") be considered part of evolution ("a process increasing genetic diversity") then the answer is that it affects the composition of gene pools. Without it, every mutation would be neutral and evolution would take quite a different path.
If you mean something else, please don't hesitate to say so.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 12:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 1:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 214 (366523)
11-28-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2006 1:00 PM


fill in the blanks
Dr Adequate, for someone lecturing others about understanding evolutionary theory, you sure do seem to need help filling in the blanks.
How do you think macroevolution occurs?
For example, most evos argue that speciation occurs via reproductive or geographical isolation, not just mutation. You seem to have an outdated and naive concept of evolution, as if whole species gradually change as a whole via mutations, very gradually over and over again until we see a species morph into something else entirely. This flies in the face of the fossil record, since we see no such thing occuring, even over millions of years. We see stasis and sudden appearance.
It also flies in the face of common sense because mutations don't generally spread around to the entire population of a species. People, for example, have not evolved 6 fingers on each hand, even though that is an advantage. Traits generally get swamped if there is no isolation of a smaller group within the species.
You don't seem to be aware of the process evo models generally use. In this process, natural selection does not just select for beneficial mutations, it also selects for existing traits within the group. This decreases genetic diversity but can increase form (lead to new forms or traits that become more dominant).
So since we see such a decrease in genetic diversity in the process of variation (this is observed), where are the studies that show beneficial mutations occur at a rate that overcomes the decrease?
Please provide some links to where evos have substantiated this most basic claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 1:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 2:15 PM randman has replied
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2006 4:38 PM randman has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 214 (366526)
11-28-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
11-28-2006 1:53 PM


Re: fill in the blanks
Dr Adequate, for someone lecturing others about understanding evolutionary theory, you sure do seem to need help filling in the blanks.
How do you think macroevolution occurs?
For example, most evos argue that speciation occurs via reproductive or geographical isolation, not just mutation.
It also flies in the face of common sense because mutations don't generally spread around to the entire population of a species. Traits generally get swamped if there is no isolation of a smaller group within the species.
You don't seem to be aware of the process evo models generally use. In this process, natural selection does not just select for beneficial mutations, it also selects for existing traits within the group. This decreases genetic diversity but can increase form (lead to new forms or traits that become more dominant).
You appear to be trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Badly.
You seem to have an outdated and naive concept of evolution, as if whole species gradually change as a whole via mutations, very gradually over and over again until we see a species morph into something else entirely. This flies in the face of the fossil record, since we see no such thing occuring, even over millions of years. We see stasis and sudden appearance.
I know this to be untrue.
People, for example, have not evolved 6 fingers on each hand, even though that is an advantage.
Perhaps we had six fingers before the Fall, eh? After all, God wouldn't make us badly, would he?
So since we see such a decrease in genetic diversity in the process of variation (this is observed)
Er, no. By definition, the process of variation increases diversity. Natural selection prevents this diversity from going entirely unchecked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 1:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 214 (366534)
11-28-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2006 2:15 PM


Re: fill in the blanks
So since we see such a decrease in genetic diversity in the process of variation (this is observed), where are the studies that show beneficial mutations occur at a rate that overcomes the decrease?
Please provide some links to where evos have substantiated this most basic claim.
Er, no. By definition, the process of variation increases diversity.
Please substantiate that with evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 2:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 7:55 PM randman has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 44 of 214 (366557)
11-28-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
11-28-2006 1:53 PM


Re: fill in the blanks
People, for example, have not evolved 6 fingers on each hand, even though that is an advantage.
Care to provide some evidence that a 6 fingered hand is beneficial?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 1:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by randman, posted 11-28-2006 5:36 PM Wounded King has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 45 of 214 (366569)
11-28-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Wounded King
11-28-2006 4:38 PM


Re: fill in the blanks
not really....it's a side point. If you think having less fingers is an advantage, fine. The point still holds on mutations in a large group being swallowed up, and that generally some sort of isolation of a smaller population is envisioned as the means of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2006 4:38 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2006 8:01 PM randman 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