Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Natural Selection
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 33 (50995)
08-19-2003 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
08-19-2003 6:01 AM


Good points. I guess the question revolves around whether males got larger due to female mate preference or if they got larger because being bigger means they got to beat up all their rivals more effectively. The latter would explain tusk size as well. Anyone know enough about elephant social groupings to be able to answer the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2003 6:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2003 6:33 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 08-19-2003 6:49 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 17 of 33 (50998)
08-19-2003 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
08-19-2003 6:22 AM


I doubt the answer is really known. Cynthia Moss has spent a lot of time studying elephants but not really that much is known about them relative to many other animal groups. Tusk and body size is very likely so pronounced in males because they display and fight with each other...once in a while one bull will kill another. Woolly mammoth males had really extreme tusks considering they were smaller than African elephants.
However, the dominant female tends to be the oldest i.e. matriarch and is often the largest as well. However, in this case size increase is not so clear since the females don't beat the hell out of each other and in Asian elephants the female tusks are highly reduced and barely visible. It may be there is no real cap to body size in elephants and that they grow (though at a slower pace when older or depending on seasonal nutritional fluctuations) throughout their lives and thus the oldest female tends to be the largest....
give me some $$ and I will go find out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2003 6:22 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2003 6:42 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 33 (51000)
08-19-2003 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mammuthus
08-19-2003 6:33 AM


If it was rivalry that was the pressure on males, then likely females got bigger 'cause the males did - you don't have to have two different sets of development instructions (itty bitty females, really big males). So it would be like giraffes rather than peacocks.
As far as $$$ goes - heh. Considering I just got 50% chopped off the top of an already meager budget, I'm more likely to come looking for a handout from YOU, rather than the reverse. (Now where did I put that resume...?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2003 6:33 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 19 of 33 (51001)
08-19-2003 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
08-19-2003 6:01 AM


Oh, right. I didn't know that -- I thought elephants
had a social structure more like buffalo/bison where there
are adult males in the group.
There goes that idea then.
Perhaps the size thing is just about getting bigger surface
are for cooling off or something? Especially if woolley
mammoths were smaller.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2003 6:01 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 33 (51002)
08-19-2003 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
08-19-2003 6:22 AM


What about getting bigger cause they can, and the little
ones mainly get eaten ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2003 6:22 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
The General
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (53294)
09-01-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
08-08-2003 6:01 AM


Responding to Natural Selection Comments
PAUL
Paul the article stated part II because it is part II in a series I wrote. You have not seen part I because I have not shown it here. Also your statement that my paper summary on natural selection is inaccurate, is itself inaccurate. When I summarized natural selection I showed it to many evolutionists and all stated that it was a good, (in some cases, very good) summary of natural selection. They disagreed with me on parts later in the paper, but not one doubted that I knew what I was talking about.
I will now comment on each of your points.
1. I have seen little, honestly no, evidence for knew species. Even if I did how could you explain that Natural Selection is the mechanism for producing such species.
When I say that there is little evidence for new species people shudder and then point to the finches on the Galapagos Islands. It was believed that there were fourteen new species of finches. Later it was discover that they could reproduce with each other, and that means that they were various kinds of one species and not 14 different species.
2. With regards to pangenesis, I made it very clear that evolutionists do not believe this anymore. I do not know one person on earth that does believe it. However, Lamarck and Darwin and many others in their day did beleive it, and it partly formed their ideas on different issues.
3. If you didnt like my story about the debate, then I am sorry, but you are only criticizing a writing style and not the arguement. Also it is quite clear what point the evolutionist was trying to make and what point the creationist was making.
4. Yes many mutations are neutral. The ones that are visible in nature as I stated are most often negative.
5. I feel that you have misunderstood my section on artificial selection.
I do appreciate your comments. It always helps me to improve the paper for a future addition.
However please do not spend to much time criticizing my papers, or my knowledge on the subject. My articles are enjoyed by over 100 readers on both sides of the debate. Just as I would not criticize your intelligence because I disagree with you, please also do the same.
PETER
That is a dangerous line I wrote "New species? Descent with modifications? When have we ever observed this?" Indeed I was mistaken. While I dont believe that Natural Selection has brought about new species, I cannot deny that there has been some descent with modifications. These variations and changes, while I would not consider them macroevolutionary, certainly exist. New species? Unlikely. Thank you for correcting me on that line.
Peter, Lamarck and Darwin and many others of there day did beleive in pangenesis. I know of no one today who does though.
Part I is a previous artilce that I wrote. It was emailed to my regular readers but I have not posted it here. Natural Selection was part II.
Sorry that I cannot respond to all of your points. Perhaps I will at a later date.
MAMMATHUS
Those six pieces of evidence that I gave and then was criticized by you for actually came from evolutionist Douglas Futumya's book 'Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution.' Those six pieces of evidence were given as the best pieces of evidence for Natural Selection in action. You though they were my pieces of proof and you through out insults at me. However, I am a creationist and Futumya is an evolutionist. Tell me, now that you know who put together those proofs do you think Futumya's 1)scholarship is poor 2)has gleaned information from creationist websites i.e. mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 3) arguments are based on personal incredulity and religious fanaticism as opposed to fact 4) has a lot of work to do to catch up and HOPEFULLY debate properly as opposed to presenting million times repeated creationist fallacies as "evidence" against the theory of evolution.
That is almost a direct quote of what you gave to me when I quoted from Futumya. Tell me do you now accuse Futumya of these things?
Let me answer for you: No!
The General

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 08-08-2003 6:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 7:06 PM The General has not replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 09-01-2003 7:13 PM The General has not replied
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2003 4:06 AM The General has not replied
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2003 6:00 AM The General has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 33 (53303)
09-01-2003 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by The General
09-01-2003 6:39 PM


I have seen little, honestly no, evidence for knew species.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Here's more new species than you can shake a stick at. I would point out that even Answers in Genesis grants that new species do arise, which is why they've adopted the "kinds" argument - that no new "kinds" can arise.
You may wish to read the definitions of species at the beginning of the faq. It's hardly possible to argue about new species without defining what a species is.
In particular I find this speciation event very interesting (it's towards the bottom of the page) because it's not only a new species, but a new species in a whole different family than its ancestors:
quote:
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The General, posted 09-01-2003 6:39 PM The General has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 33 (53305)
09-01-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by The General
09-01-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
Well to answer your responses:
Firstly I made it quite clear what I felt were the significant omissions. Your response that you showed your description of natural selection to several "evolutionists" does not negate the problems I identified - as should be obvious from the fact that my criticisms referred to either to other parts of your essay or represented an overview of the whole thing.
1) You have ignored most of my response and instead choose to assert that no examples of speciation are known. Aside from the fact that you are in error concerning the Galapagos finnches (there are fewer species based on interfertility than was originally thought but more than one as you claim) there are examples listed at talkorigins.org.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
2) The problem with your reference to pangenesis is that it is not relevant to the modern theory of evolution at all - nor is it part of natural selection which you were supposedly discussing. Indeed there seems to be no relevance at all. Perhaps it is just an excuse to have a go at Darwin.
3) My point concerning the debate story is that it seems to be an attempt at empty point-scoring. And one that likely misrepresents the victim (the creationist certainly did!).
4) Again you miss the important point that natural selection was devised to explain common descent.
5) I don't see how you can claim that I have missed your point on artificial selection. I didn't see any suggestion that artifical selection somehow rapidly produces new, useful mutations - and if you weren't suggesting that my point stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The General, posted 09-01-2003 6:39 PM The General has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 33 (53452)
09-02-2003 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by The General
09-01-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
quote:
Those six pieces of evidence that I gave and then was criticized by you for actually came from evolutionist Douglas Futumya's book 'Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution.' Those six pieces of evidence were given as the best pieces of evidence for Natural Selection in action.
Please read my post more carefully...I criticized what YOU wrote and not what the six points.
While my tone was sarcastic in my response, the fact remains that you did not address any of the issues that I raised...and my tone was sarcastic because you present unsupported fallacies as facts.
This most recent post of yours is almost pure intellectual dishonesty....for example, you ignored my entire post and have here focused on this exchange
quote:
quote:
The General says in post 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these six examples are the best observational evidence of natural selection, one who accepts creationism can conclude two things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mams response to this part:
If those 6 were all you could find we can conclude several things 1) your scholarship is poor 2) you have gleaned your information from creationist websites i.e. your mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 3) your arguments are based on personal incredulity and religious fanaticism as opposed to fact 4) you have a lot of work to do to catch up and HOPEFULLY debate properly as opposed to your presenting million times repeated creationist fallacies as "evidence" against the theory of evolution.
Note The General, I criticized YOUR poor scholarship....Futuyma in a textbook gives 6 examples. You attribute them as the best examples that evolution has to offer. My claim is that these are six examples among thousands of examples. They are not necessarily better or worse than others but are hardly comprehensive...I and others have been posting more examples to you which you have ignored. The mischaractarization of evolution I accused you of in the part of the post you did NOT address. The creationist fallacies were attributed to YOU.
I have to wonder that you would have to use a tactic of evasion, misquote, and mischaracterization of my criticisms of your post to get your point across. It certainly suggests your position cannot stand alone on its own merits....
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The General, posted 09-01-2003 6:39 PM The General has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Apostle, posted 11-19-2003 12:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 33 (53461)
09-02-2003 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by The General
09-01-2003 6:39 PM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
General: Message 8, please.
------------------
"It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority of reason as to argue with the dead." -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by The General, posted 09-01-2003 6:39 PM The General has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 33 (67626)
11-19-2003 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Mammuthus
09-02-2003 4:06 AM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
I do not think the paragraph or two on pangenesis is, in fact, misleading. After all it was taught by Darwin. Mendelian Genetics, being accepted later, was more something incorporated into Natural Selection by the modern syntesizers (i.e. Mayr, Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley and Simpson). One could not blame Darwin too much for his belief in pangenesis for he does not have the technology that we have today, therefore he is unable to make as educated an opinion. The addition of pangenesis in the paper is valuable if only for it's historical purposes.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 09-02-2003 4:06 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2003 3:12 AM Apostle has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 27 of 33 (67647)
11-19-2003 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Apostle
11-19-2003 12:42 AM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
Hi Apostle,
As a historical issue it is interesting. However, The General claims that Darwin's lack of information regarding the basis of heredity somehow nullifies evolution (and modern genetics for that matter) was a bogus claim...but The General is long gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Apostle, posted 11-19-2003 12:42 AM Apostle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Drahzar, posted 11-22-2003 8:26 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 30 by Apostle, posted 11-23-2003 11:43 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Drahzar
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 33 (68647)
11-22-2003 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mammuthus
11-19-2003 3:12 AM


quote:
these animals, which would later be called the giraffe, began stretching their necks to reach the leaves. Because of this stretching, their neck grew longer.
Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think that's the reason. It's not that the giraffes just stretched their necks out, and that passed on, it's that only the giraffes with long necks survived, as more came, they ate even higher up, and only the giraffes with even longer necks survived, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2003 3:12 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 11-22-2003 8:34 PM Drahzar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 33 (68650)
11-22-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Drahzar
11-22-2003 8:26 PM


You are, of course, correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Drahzar, posted 11-22-2003 8:26 PM Drahzar has not replied

  
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 33 (68889)
11-23-2003 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mammuthus
11-19-2003 3:12 AM


Re: Responding to Natural Selection Comments
Certainly Darwin's belief in pangenesis does not disprove evolution. As a historical issue it is interesting. Perhaps it was not brought up to be historically interesting. If that is the case then it deserves to be criticized. On the other hand, if Darwin was mistaken about this, perhaps he was mistaken about other things. Yet on the other hand, Darwin's mistakes have likely been corrected by now. Also Lamarck often is given unfair treatment. In truth though, the majority of his concepts are very interesting, and scientifically strong. In my opinion he also deserves credit as a great scientist. (He just went foul when it came to heredity.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2003 3:12 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 11-24-2003 12:42 AM Apostle has not replied
 Message 32 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2003 3:14 AM Apostle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024