Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 31 of 302 (536383)
11-22-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Wounded King
11-22-2009 6:21 AM


Ok, well, I will answer some of these as time permits.
The point you seem to be making is that you will only likely find these types of beneficial mutations in populations where there is pressure for that mutation to spread throughout its population. But that is not addressing what I am saying at all.
I was discussing the starting point for these kinds of mutations to arise. For such a resistance to begin within a population, first there must be ONE singular carrier of that beneficial mutation. Or if you wish to say so, one can suppose that maybe several individuals within the population got the same mutation. Either way, we need to be able to look at the odds of that happening, and one way to do that would be to see in a random sampling of individuals NOT exposed to any of these diseases, are they still occasionally getting this kind of mutations at birth. Do one in 10,000 people get born with a mutation that would just so happen to provide a resistance to kuru disease? Or to rabies? Or is it much less than that? After all, we are saying these mutations are random, so why only look at individuals in populations with pressure to select for this. If you were able to test the entire world's population, would 1 in a billion have this genetic mistake-not as a trait that was inherited, but simply because these kinds of things are common genetic mistakes?
When we can show that these kinds of mutations-resistance to diseases, beneficial additions to existing body structures and so forth, are happening all the time randomly, then we can at least be closer to showing a basis for how this theory logically can work.
You know, one part of the theory suggests that in order to build complex parts, small mutations occasionally arise which have piggybacked onto existing body plans and caused a reproductive advantage. So do we see this as well, say in human populations? Do people get born with mutated depressions right in the sockets of the eyes, in such a way that they actually experience vision better than all other people do, simply because they have this unusual mutation? Furthermore, are there people that are born with similar mutated depressions, but they don't happen to be in their eye sockets, but instead they happen to be in the middle of their shin, but if they were in the middle of their eye sockets it would be useful? And these kinds of mutations keep cropping up in all different parts of people's bodies, and sometimes they just so happen to hit in a perfect location-just like a hole formed in the side of an individuals face, in such a way, that it made hearing possible or better. Maybe some people are born with an extra hole in their head, and if they survive long enough to have babies, they can make an entire subset of individuals with this extra hole, and one day that can turn into a third ear..ones which can pick up unknown frequencies of vibrating strings in the cosmic ether.
Any evidence for these kinds of things occurring with regularity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 11-22-2009 6:21 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2009 5:24 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-22-2009 6:23 PM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 32 of 302 (536395)
11-22-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 12:59 PM


So ... you don't actually want to discuss natural selection? Only in your OP you said that you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 12:59 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 33 of 302 (536397)
11-22-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 12:59 PM


I know that short responses are frowned upon but I can't think of any sensible response to this post other than - WTF?
Not only do you not seem to want to discuss natural selection you don't even seem to want to discuss evolution as any evolutionary biologist would understand it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 12:59 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 9:10 PM Wounded King has replied
 Message 39 by Iblis, posted 11-22-2009 10:10 PM Wounded King has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 34 of 302 (536400)
11-22-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2009 5:24 PM


This is a discussion about natural selection including the mutations that are necessary to drive the selection. You need a mutation in order to have varying genetic models to choose from. Is that hard for you to gather?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2009 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 12:13 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 56 by pandion, posted 11-24-2009 1:43 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 35 of 302 (536401)
11-22-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
11-22-2009 6:23 PM


I don't believe that you are an evolutionary biologist, so I am not sure how you can know what they may or may not understand. If as it appears you can not understand the logical questions with the selection process, and the need for continued new starting points to select for, I shall move on to others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-22-2009 6:23 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 11-23-2009 4:51 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 36 of 302 (536404)
11-22-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by CosmicChimp
11-22-2009 8:39 AM


Re: Special pleading, begging even.
It seems to me that you have stated that all of the properties of evolution are present; but then go on to claim that what is observed is not evolution. Other than your special pleading claim, that it is not evolution, can you somehow show that what happened is not evolution?
Has the question become Can I prove it is not evolution? rather than has the scientific community shown that it is- through rigorous testing and conformation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-22-2009 8:39 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 37 of 302 (536405)
11-22-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by lyx2no
11-22-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Not Now
Not Now
It is kind of funny that one would cite a population of people developing a resistance to disease in a few decades as evidence that Darwin's theorized process of slow gradual change, based on random mutations caused these resistances. This was a random mutation that just so happened to crop up exactly in a population that was experiencing the disease, in exactly the right time(down to the decade) that the population was being exposed to the pressure? That is some serious good fortune. I wonder who that 'one" individual is who happened to be around at just the right time to father the entire population of children and pass on the resistance is? I guess the entire population can be traced by to one very prolific and possibly still alive reproducer.
quote:
This paragraph shows a common misconception about evolution: The timing of the mutation is concurrent with the timing of its value. It is not. The mutation may have happened a thousand generations prior.
Say a simple mutation makes an apparently unimportant change in an apparently unimportant protein. This protein is passed down in happenstance fashion for twenty thousand years and now 2% of the tribe has it.
It is not a misconception about how the theory works. The original mutation may very well have happened 100's or even 1000's of years before, or it may have happened ten years ago-you are simply guessing at this. I suppose one way to test your theory would be to test other groups of populations that have never been exposed to the disease, and see if they also have 25 of the population with this kind of mutation. Is 2% a normal variation we see randomly in populations?
Many of the arguments to support the ToE seem to stem from people saying..."well, suppose this happened...blah blah." Ok, if we are going to use the idea of suppose this happened, then fair enough. But by the same token, since you can't prove what did happen through testing, I guess all supposition are fair game for scrutiny.
So you can guess if you like, that this kind of resistance was a slow gradual process that took thousands of years to achieve, but since we also have evidences of other evolutionary change NOT happening in quite the very slow gradual way over many thousands of years that natural selection is said to occur, but often in a more rapid fashion, your guess is no better than a guess that says it didn't happen thousands of years ago.
That is why I said it is funny that the poster would use this as one example of a test of natural selection's abilities. The author of the study himself said he was surprised that this could happen so quickly, over a few decades. If you want to show proof of your theory as a slow natural selection process it is kind of ironic to site a study which shows exactly the opposite of slow, don't you think?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : for clarity, and to segment the quotes better-I don't know how to do that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by lyx2no, posted 11-22-2009 9:30 AM lyx2no has not replied

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 38 of 302 (536406)
11-22-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 2:22 AM


Suffice it to say that your views on the subject are misinformed. I know that you don't want to read texts of people telling you that (as you alluded to in the OP), I expect it is because you have read it too often. You should take it as good advice from those previous individuals and especially from some of us here when we write it too. You're going to have to do the actual work involved if you want to understand the core issues. RAZD, lyx2no, Wounded King, Blzebub, Coyote, Granny Magda and others have kindly pointed out most of the problems. I concur with their assessments. Read the material RAZD linked to and re-read Wounded King's response to this your post, that I too am responding to. You have too much on your plate so I'm not going to offer much more than the others have stated already.
I will however reiterate a small clue for you. Within a complex system of action -> reaction, evident in something like prion diseases, one mutation effecting the propagation of the disease is not the single and only possible way to change outcomes. You seem focused on an unwarranted narrowing down of causes when any number of subtle changes to the intertwined system could and would have various effects. Good luck in your studies, remember read for comprehension.
Edited by CosmicChimp, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 2:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 39 of 302 (536409)
11-22-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
11-22-2009 6:23 PM


WTF?
Yeah it's the usual story. He says he wants to discuss natural selection, but only in sexual species (because there must be something making a Choice.) You thoroughly document natural selection, he says NO what he really wants to discuss is random mutation (because there must be something Driving the process.) Any minute now he is going to insist what you really are supposed to discuss is abiogenesis (because there must be something Starting it all.)
He's trying to prove "god" is in on it by sneaking Him in in his pocket and giving Him a good stroke every time he moves the goalposts. At the end, when he's got everything jusst riight, he's planning to whip Him out suddenly and give Him one more hard yank "In Conclusion" and shoot hot dogma all over everybody's face.
It's bible bukakke, that's what it is . . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-22-2009 6:23 PM Wounded King has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 40 of 302 (536410)
11-22-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
11-22-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Yes ... now the finer points?
For the record, these are comments of yours that are either wrong or confused (taken from one paragraph in Message 17):
1. what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred.
2. random mutations slowly drifted through the populations along with every other kind of random mutation,
and these are comments of yours that are either wrong or confused (taken from another paragraph in Message 17):
You are going to need to improve your comprehension skills, before you can so arrogantly accuse others of not understanding.
Point: I NEVER said that the Theory suggests changes based on need, I said that the evidence from those studies only demonstrate change when it was needed! I was saying the exact opposite of what you inferred. Here is the exact quote:
"So far it seems the "tests" you and others have mentioned as evidence, provide nothing in the way of showing that it was " Darwin's natural selection" that caused this evolutionary changes._In fact what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred."
Now from that VERY simple sentence you have concluded that I was saying the ToE suggest change occurs when needed. How wrong can you be.
So if you can't even get this very simple bit of logic, how can you possibly understand the rest.
I say "the tests you provided don't indicate random mutations and then slow eventual change but rather demonstate changes occurring quickly when needed", and you say the "ToE of evolution doesn't suggest that change occurs based on need, see you don't understand the theory" No kidding it doesn't suggest that. What the hell do you think I was saying!
And you want to use this brilliant deduction to say I don't know what I am talking about. Terrific.
Forgive me if I don't cloud this discussion with replying to such inanity in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2009 11:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2009 5:37 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 41 of 302 (536411)
11-22-2009 10:38 PM


Well so far we have peppered moths, finches with oscillating populations of varying beak sizes, and a resistance to disease occurring in a population is a few short decades. Not a very impressive list to show that the ToE has got it all pegged correctly so far if you ask me.
Heck, I am not even a creationist, but I can certainly see why plenty of people would want other theories discussed in schools...or at least hope that we start looking for some other theories.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling...poor eyesight

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 11-22-2009 11:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by bluescat48, posted 11-23-2009 12:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Briterican, posted 11-23-2009 12:43 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 42 of 302 (536417)
11-22-2009 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 10:38 PM


Hi. I'm new to this forum and I am hoping to get some intelligent, yet clear answers to this debate of creation vs. evolution.
Iblis - very poor post. hopefully an admin will take note of it and delete it. I hope this isn't the kind of dialog that will continue in this forum as no one benefits from this type of derogatory slamming.
But Bolder-dash, I do think this appears to be a bit of "bait and switch".
It appears to me that natural selection IS a documented and tested theory. We can observe it happening in populations all around us. What I think the next logical question here is what are limitations on natural selection. Since we can't observe small gradual changes happening over millions of years, it may be an assumption that there are no limitations to what natural selection can accomplish. Let me explain what I am talking about with an illustration:
We have a population of antelope living in Africa (or wherever). The antelope that can run the fastest are the ones that are most likely to survive as the predators (the lions) cannot catch them and will eat the slower antelope. Likewise, the lions that can run the fastest will be more likely to catch the antelope, thus creating a never ending cycle. So, could the antelope eventually be able to run 100MPH? No, there would be a limit as to how fast the antelope could ever run. They would be limited by their muscle and bone structures along with other limiting factors. In order for them to be able to run faster their body structures would need to be modified.
I know this is an oversimplified illustration, and there would be many other ways the antelope could develop to avoid capture by the lions, such as camouflage, evasive maneuvers, ect. I am just using it to illustrate my question. What are the limitations to what natural selection can accomplish?
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 10:38 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 11-23-2009 3:54 AM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 43 of 302 (536421)
11-23-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 10:38 PM


Heck, I am not even a creationist, but I can certainly see why plenty of people would want other theories discussed in schools...or at least hope that we start looking for some other theories.
Fine, whenever someone comes up with a theory as robust as evolution is, then yes it should be discussed. Only as of now there is none.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 10:38 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 44 of 302 (536437)
11-23-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by herebedragons
11-22-2009 11:55 PM


Welcome
Hi herebedragons, welcome to EvC!
herebedragons writes:
Iblis - very poor post. hopefully an admin will take note of it and delete it. I hope this isn't the kind of dialog that will continue in this forum as no one benefits from this type of derogatory slamming.
Posts are never deleted here, perhaps hidden, but the content is always preserved. If you have a problem with a certain post or poster, you can raise your concerns here: Report discussion problems here: No.2. Moderators will look at it and perhaps warn or suspend the poster, if they are so inclined.
What are the limitations to what natural selection can accomplish?
I guess they're limited to what chemistry and physics will allow. Not sure about those limits are though.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 11-22-2009 11:55 PM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 45 of 302 (536438)
11-23-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 9:10 PM


I don't believe that you are an evolutionary biologist, so I am not sure how you can know what they may or may not understand.
One does not need to be an evolutionary biologist to understand what has been written on the subject in published research.
There were no logical questions. You asked essentially the same thing I had already answered with regard to the frequency of mutations and then went into an incoherent ramble about evolving a hole in the head to allow one to sense the vibration of cosmic strings.
Do one in 10,000 people get born with a mutation that would just so happen to provide a resistance to kuru disease? Or to rabies? Or is it much less than that? After all, we are saying these mutations are random, so why only look at individuals in populations with pressure to select for this. If you were able to test the entire world's population, would 1 in a billion have this genetic mistake-not as a trait that was inherited, but simply because these kinds of things are common genetic mistakes?
To re-iterate, the frequency of any specific mutation that produces a protective effect against kuru does not tell us the frequency of all possible mutations producing such a protective effect. So while we could, given enough funding and time, sequence a large enough population to estimate a general rate of occurence that specific protective SNP in populations not exposed to Kuru, it would give us little in the way of worthwhile information. And it certainly isn't neccessary to demonstrate natural selection is in operation.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 9:10 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-23-2009 9:40 AM Wounded King 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