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:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 191 (529870)
10-10-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Show me to that math or point me to it.
Certainly.
By the way, did your mother never teach you the "magic word"?
I know you can't actually have done the math ...
And how wrong you were.
because the there has never been a mutation observed (in nature, or in a lab) that has not corrected itself.
Your fantasy of mutations "correcting themselves" is a new one on me. I thought I'd heard every creationist error about genetics, but it seems there's always something new to learn.
Anyhoo, my point is that this is something you've made up. Basing your arguments on stuff you've made up is not going to get you very far.
Also nobody has answered my question about why evolution has slowed down in the last few thousand years.
Did you ask that? How amusing.
It hasn't.
In fact the complexity of cells and the lack of a good explanation for the evolution of complex cellular structures and the origin of living cells is what finally convinced me that evolution at the very least has some pretty big gaps and is not worthy of being considered a theory. And the explanations given for how these celluar structures "may" have originated are never based on observation and cannot be duplicated in a laboratory ...
Another odd fantasy.
In the Middle Ages, when the Earth-centric theory of the world began to show disagreement with the growing observational data in astronomy, adherents of the paradigm busily invented a seemingly endless series of cycles and epicycles (circles within circles) to account for the movement of heavenly objects around the Earth, tweaks that allowed them to continue to justify the old paradigm. The same thing happened and continues to happen in biology. The Darwinists' response to any possible observational discrepancy is to propose a suitable modification of Darwinian ideas - shades of cycles and epicycles. Darwinism is so general that it can be reinterpreted to incorporate any data that contradicts it. It is not falsifiable.
You do say a lot of stuff that isn't true, don't you?
Anyway, the purpose of this thread is for you guys to be wrong about genetics (preferably natural selection) not the origin of life or the scientific method. But feel free to start another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:35 PM Kevin123 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 47 of 191 (529873)
10-10-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:32 PM


Re: Mutating genes
wow, no need to resort to personal attacks. In the context of the discussion it should have been obvious that I am looking for proof of macro evolution
But that is not what you asked for.
If you are looking for evidence of macroevolution, why did you explicitly ask to see something which is not evidence of macroevolution?
And his example is not proof that new genetic information was added. As i pointed out the mechanisms to metabolize citrate are already there.
And the capacity to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions was not. Therefore, this is something new. Because it wasn't there and now it is. New. See?
Maybe you should read more than the last post before you start attacking someone.
The fact that I haven't yet answered every error you've made in this thread doesn't mean that I haven't read them all.
The problem is you people always resort to the same three things every time: this bacteria learnt to eat that, became resistant to that, sickle cell this....
And if you think that macro evolution is a result of small mutations then the example he provided is your proof. Or do you have better proof for how a new organ or limb could be developed?
This is a strange collection of words. I can make little of them.
If not then you need to reconcile the mutations observed with the time allowed by your evolutionary timeline.
Which, as I pointed out, fit perfectly together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:32 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 48 of 191 (529877)
10-10-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Mutating genes
That wiki paragraph is you mathematical proof? That is hilarious because if you have read it, it is simply using the dates of the fossil record to calculate how many changes the time frame would allow. If that is proof then you are using a reverse scientific method.
This just shows the funny science you evolutionists use to try to justify your theory as new evidence comes to light. You take your theory and make the data fit it. If anything that same wiki helps me prove my point.
I guess I will resort to your tactics and simply say you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2009 9:59 PM Kevin123 has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 1:31 AM Kevin123 has not replied

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


Message 49 of 191 (529878)
10-10-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Mutating genes
That wiki paragraph is you mathematical proof? That is hilarious because if you have read it, it is simply using the dates of the fossil record to calculate how many changes the time frame would allow. If that is proof then you are using a reverse scientific method.
This just shows the funny science you evolutionists use to try to justify your theory as new evidence comes to light. You take your theory and make the data fit it. If anything that same wiki helps me prove my point.
Now read it again until you understand it. You might want to look at the section on "misconceptions" at the bottom of the page.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 191 (529882)
10-10-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:32 PM


Re: Mutating genes
The problem is you people always resort to the same three things every time: this bacteria learnt to eat that, became resistant to that, sickle cell this....
These are examples of evolution.
Its not our fault that creationists expect evolution to be something on the order of a crocodile giving birth to a chicken. If we were to find such an occurrence, then much of what we know about evolution would probably be wrong.
And if you think that macro evolution is a result of small mutations then the example he provided is your proof.
Macro-evolution (primarily a creationist term now) is the result of many small mutations, or micro-evolutions. Creationists dispute this, but they have never been able to propose a mechanism that halts micro-evolutions when they add up, lest they become a macro-evolution.
Or do you have better proof for how a new organ or limb could be developed?
That's been observed in the fossil record, which is confirmed by the genetic record.
If not then you need to reconcile the mutations observed with the time allowed by your evolutionary timeline.
That's no problem.
Even many creationists have no problem with the timeline. Woodmorappe and Lubenow, for example, see Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis as racial variants of modern man descended from Adam and Eve, most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. This puts the rate of evolution several hundred times faster than that proposed by paleontologists (and in reverse). So if you want to dispute the timeline, better start with creationists. (We'll take on the winner--except in religious battles there are no winners, there are only schisms and more denominations).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:32 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 51 of 191 (529891)
10-10-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 11:48 PM


Re: Mutating genes
... then the likelihood of just ten consecutive mutations occurring would be 1 in 10^60, fifty consecutive beneficial mutations would occur 1 in 10^300. Even allowing 300 million generations that is still odds of 3 x 10^6 in 10^300, and that is only 50 beneficial mutations not the millions that would be needed.
Kevin, I can tell you from hard experience that such figures might trouble a scientist, but they will never discourage an atheist.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 11:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 12:13 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4487 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 52 of 191 (529894)
10-11-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
09-23-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Biblical creationist zealots
That because those are virtually the only folks nowadays who are questioning the theory of evolution.
Oh, how you wish that was true.
But you can hear the footsteps, can't you, Coyote?
More and more scientists, with better and better qualifications, questioning the theory. More and more people breathing on your fragile little house of cards. More and more hitherto sacred absurdities being exposed by mathematics and observed data. More and more intricacies of DNA being uncovered by the year, consigning your theory firmly into a place of academic fantasy.
To the point where an American President would consider it appropriate to promote the principle of ID.
Listen to those footsteps, Coyote. Because as they become louder and more insistent they will drown out your athiest dogma and herald an exciting new dawn for true science.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2009 5:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 12:22 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2009 12:56 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

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


Message 53 of 191 (529895)
10-11-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Kaichos Man
10-10-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Kevin, I can tell you from hard experience that such figures might trouble a scientist, but they will never discourage an atheist.
But such figures do not trouble scientists. Mainly because scientists are mathematically literate.
This is why you can't quote any scientist talking such nonsense about genetics, but instead are quoting some random guy on the internet whose errors about genetics are so far removed from reality as to be delusional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-10-2009 11:06 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

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


Message 54 of 191 (529896)
10-11-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kaichos Man
10-11-2009 12:01 AM


Re: Biblical creationist zealots
Oh, how you wish that was true.
But you can hear the footsteps, can't you, Coyote?
More and more scientists, with better and better qualifications, questioning the theory. More and more people breathing on your fragile little house of cards. More and more hitherto sacred absurdities being exposed by mathematics and observed data. More and more intricacies of DNA being uncovered by the year, consigning your theory firmly into a place of academic fantasy.
To the point where an American President would consider it appropriate to promote the principle of ID.
Listen to those footsteps, Coyote. Because as they become louder and more insistent they will drown out your athiest dogma and herald an exciting new dawn for true science.
What an interesting fantasy world you live in.
The most amusing thing about this fantasy is that it has, literally, been passed down from generation to generation. Creationists have always been pretending that any day now they will achieve victory. Ex-creationist Glen Morton has called it the longest running falsehood in creationism.
Yeah ... any day now. Tomorrow, or Tuesday at the latest, you guys will come up with a good argument, and then everyone will see that you're right. Or maybe Wednesday ...
Nice daydream. Let me introduce you to reality:
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
Those are actual scientists, not the imaginary scientists who live in your head.
Now, this thread is actually a chance for you to be wrong about natural selection. Would you like to do that, or would you prefer to share your wet dreams with us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-11-2009 12:01 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 191 (529901)
10-11-2009 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kaichos Man
10-11-2009 12:01 AM


Re: Biblical creationist zealots
That because those are virtually the only folks nowadays who are questioning the theory of evolution.
Oh, how you wish that was true.
But you can hear the footsteps, can't you, Coyote?
More and more scientists, with better and better qualifications, questioning the theory. More and more people breathing on your fragile little house of cards. More and more hitherto sacred absurdities being exposed by mathematics and observed data. More and more intricacies of DNA being uncovered by the year, consigning your theory firmly into a place of academic fantasy.
Virtually the only folks worldwide who question the theory of evolution are religious fundamentalists. Scientists, up to about 99.9%, accept the theory; the numbers are higher among biological and genetic scientists and much lower among mathematicians and engineers (who are not actually scientists in most cases).
To the point where an American President would consider it appropriate to promote the principle of ID.
That was not his best moment.
Listen to those footsteps, Coyote. Because as they become louder and more insistent they will drown out your athiest dogma and herald an exciting new dawn for true science.
True science? What a joke!
Creationists are trying to define "true science" as any science which does not contradict their religious beliefs.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any field of study which follows the scientific method is a "true" science whether creationist say yea or nay.
And why should we listen to what creationists or fundamentalists say about science anyway? Creationism and religious fundamentalism are the antithesis (that means the opposite) of science.
If we were to do all that the fundamentalists were promoting we would be back in the Dark Ages. Sorry, that time has passed and its not coming back again. We've experienced the Enlightenment, which showed us that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-11-2009 12:01 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

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


Message 56 of 191 (529906)
10-11-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Mutating genes
That wiki paragraph is you mathematical proof? That is hilarious because if you have read it it is simply using the dates of the fossil record to calculate how many changes the time frame would allow. If that is proof then you are using a reverse scientific method.
This just shows the funny science you evolutionists use to try to justify your theory as new evidence comes to light. You take your theory and make the data fit it. If anything that same wiki helps me prove my point.
I think I see what you're trying to be wrong about. I'm not sure, because, let's face it, you're not going to win the Mr Coherent 2009 award.
But you seem to be complaining that I have proved the following fact:
Time (as given by study of the fossil record) the rate of evolution = the quantity of evolution
Whereas this, you seem to be saying, is "using a reverse scientific method", because I should have proved the following fact:
The quantity of evolution / the rate of evolution = time (as given by the study of the fossil record)
But these are logically identical statements. It doesn't matter which way I demonstrate the math, it's the same equation, rearranged.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Kevin123 has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 57 of 191 (815363)
07-19-2017 1:34 PM


I am still puzzled here. I don't see how evolution explains the existence of the thing being selected.
The heart pumps blood around the body so it is going to be "selected" and survive. But that does not account for the dispositions and biochemical processes that create it and which it is made of.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 2:48 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 191 (815366)
07-19-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AndrewPD
07-19-2017 1:34 PM


I am still puzzled here. I don't see how evolution explains the existence of the thing being selected.
Natural selection operates on the individual phenotypes. Mutations occur in the individual genotypes. Evolution occurs on the population.
There's all kinds of causes of mutations. Whether or not they stick in the population or not depends on how the changes to individuals' fitness to the environment are affected by the changes in their phenotype.
I guess I'm not sure what "thing" evolution doesn't explain? It doesn't explain how the first organisms got here - but that's not a part of the theory; it explains how life has gotten so diverse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 1:34 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2414 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 59 of 191 (815374)
07-19-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2017 2:48 PM


If I create 5 different models of cars and only one of them works then in that way the environment has selected the successful car but it didn't create the cars.
In what sense is evolution creating new species.
For example if I am born with stronger than average arms that is a biochemical event. But if I don't have children that trait won't enter the gene pool.
Essentially the organism is a series of biochemical events and structures that are described by biochemical events. In what way are these biochemical events evolutionary?
If there is no disposition for me to be born with strong arms that disposition can't arise.
For example most known planets do not have adequate dispositions to create life. Once a chemical soup arises and has dispositions for emergent properties these properties may emerge based on the behaviour of chemistry and environment.But once a disposition starts to exist it already exist before it can be selected.
So how can selection explain somethings existence?
Edited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 07-19-2017 4:11 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2017 4:16 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 8:43 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 60 of 191 (815377)
07-19-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AndrewPD
07-19-2017 3:57 PM


AndrewPD writes:
If I create 5 different models of cars and only one of them works then in that way the environment has selected the successful car but it didn't create the cars.
In what sense is evolution creating new species.
Natural selection did create a population of one type of car instead of a population of different types of cars. That is what is meant by creating new species. The "creation" part is describing why we see individuals with one set of features instead of another. Of course, biologists realize that new organisms are created by biological reproduction. Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
Essentially the organism is a series of biochemical events and structures that are described by biochemical events. In what way are these biochemical events evolutionary?
An individual organism does not evolve. Evolution involves a population of organisms over several generations. It refers to the emergence of new variations in a population followed by a change in the ratios of different variations within that same population.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AndrewPD, posted 07-19-2017 3:57 PM AndrewPD 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