|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I read recently where an editor of Discovery Magazine stated that Darwin provided a testable mechanism for evolutionary change, and as such it has stood up to the rigors of such testing.
I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? I would like to stipulate that talking about bacteria (in any form) does not qualify as any type of test, because ultimately we must be taking sexual reproduction, where choices are being made into account-so bacteria is out. Ok, so what are these tests which prove (or even provide solid evidence for) natural selection is the driver of evolutionary change? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Bolder-dash and welcome to EvC!
Your proposal is fine except where you propose your own guidelines. EvC Forum already has a set of Forum Guidelines that are enforced by moderators, and discussion participants are not permitted to add their own. Your preference for focusing on the natural selection of sexual species is fine because that is simply delimiting the topic, but participants do not make the decisions about what constitutes valid discussion. That would be the moderator's realm. Please edit your opening post to make this minor adjustment, then post a short note to this thread letting me know you're done and I'll take another look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Ok, I have made the changes as requested, but as this forum appears to be moderated exclusively by people on the pro-Darwinian evolution side of the debate, I hope that my previous wording for fairness of discussion is kept in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Has natural selection really been tested and verified? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Bolder-dash, and welcome to the fray.
Has natural selection really been tested and verified? Yes, in fact it has been tested and verified so many times that it has been validated to a very high degree. There are so many observations and studies of natural selection causing a shift in the frequency of genetic traits from one generation to the next, that it is difficult not to find cases where it occurs.
Are actual field studies observing the effects on natural selection in undisturbed nature, so we are not even limited to lab studies. Also see "Natural Selection Examples" - google results I am not so sure that this is true. Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? First you need to define what you mean by "evolutionary change" - so we can see if your meaning is similar to what is used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular. In science "evolutionary change" means that the frequency distribution of hereditary traits is different from one generation to the next. I expect you are thinking of something more dramatic than variations on a theme changes. Second, you need to distinguish between the observable phenomenon of natural selection as a process of life, and the theory of Natural Selection as part of an explanation for the diversity of life as we know it.
I would like to stipulate that talking about bacteria (in any form) does not qualify as any type of test, because ultimately we must be taking sexual reproduction, where choices are being made into account-so bacteria is out. Curiously, natural selection involves survival and reproduction, such that those individuals which are more successful at surviving and reproducing will pass on more genes to the next generation than those that are less successful. It doesn't matter if reproduction is sexual or asexual.
Ok, so what are these tests which prove (or even provide solid evidence for) ... In science - all science - nothing is proven. The best we have are highly validated theories with mountains of evidence supporting the theory and no contradictory or anomalous evidence. The best we can say is that this means that the theory is a good approximation of the truth. Gravity fits this level of validation.Natural selection fits this level of validation. Thus the solid evidence available provides a sound basis for concluding that the theory is a good approximation of the truth.
... provide solid evidence for) natural selection is the driver of evolutionary change? Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - other major contributors are mutation and genetic drift. Mutation provides new variations to the mix of hereditary traits that are then susceptible to the action of natural selection, and genetic drift is where stochastic effects (natural disasters etc) change the population that is then left for evolution by mutation and natural selection. So, what you mean by "evolutionary change"? What do you expect to see? Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined:
|
Can people point to tests that have verified that natural selection causes evolutionary change? What tests have they conducted? Do these tests accurately mimic the real world? Here's a fascinating, and rather timely, example of natural selection in homo sapiens (not a type of bacterium!): Page not found — UKRI
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
A better question would be, if natural selection's little brother sexual selection has been tested. I would find that more interesting (because I think we all agree natural selection is a real thing and that it has been tested)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
A better question would be, if natural selection's little brother sexual selection has been tested. What do you mean by "tested"? There are innumerable examples of sexual selection in nature. As usual, a little light googling will turn them up for you . Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Takahashi, M., and others, Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains, Animal Behaviour 75(4):1209—1219, 2008
I found this, does it count ? (I mean, of sexual selection can't explain the very thing Darwin thought of it for ...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Takahashi, M., and others, Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains, Animal Behaviour 75(4):1209—1219, 2008 First, you have the title of that article wrong. The correct title is: Do peahens not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=... You may consider this picky, but if you are going to try to do science you must learn to be very precise. Second, this study may not be as clear cut as creationists would like. Here is a response: Choosey Peahens Choose Evolution Highlight: ...as I noted in a guest entry on Denis Ford’s This Week in Evolution. Essentially, the paper has two major problems (my article deals with some other minor ones as well): Did you perhaps get that title from a creationist website? If so, it should serve as a reminder that you should always check a few non-creationist sources to see if the creationist websites are lying to you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Did you perhaps get that title from a creationist website? Like this one for example? Peacock tail tale failure - creation.com A very shallow and self-serving article it has to be said. As usual, creationists who pour scorn upon science generally are quite happy to accept any paper that seems to confirm their biases, without the least bit of critical analysis. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
quote: The researchers were not peahens. A retardation dot com special.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The title is correct. It's just because there were two articles with similar titles and you got the wrong one. Here is the correct link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=... The one you linked was a research done by Loyau, and this one by Takahashi. And yes, I did get the title from a creation.com article, and I do think you pressed the ''lie!'' button rather quickly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Durrrrrrr!
You creationists are funny. Are there no depths you will not plumb in your pathetic quest to prove the bible is true? Have you guys ever heard of "cognitive dissonance"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5268 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
P.S.
The OP question has been answered. If you must talk about sexual selection, I would suggest a new thread. I wouldn't advise it, though.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024