Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

Well, now I am confused. I only asked you about natural selection forming an eye, and then you go and bring bring mutations into the discussion. I thought we were just talking about natural selection.

Well, now I am confused. I only asked you about natural selection forming an eye, and then you go and bring bring mutations into the discussion. I thought we were just talking about natural selection.

I quoted him exactly, I can't help it if you can't read that. My response to him was sarcasm. Do you know what that is?I asked him to explain how an eye is made through natural selection, and his response was "it developed through natural selection acting on mutations." That was a verbatim quote!So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?He used the word mutation because there is no other way to talk about the evolutionary process of change without it. This is a discussion about things evolving after-all, hence the words evolutionary change in my OP..get it!The argument is about natural selection's effect on the evolutionary process-and that deals DIRECTLY with mutations-as Dr. Adequate so easily demonstrated- so now I guess I should say thank you to him!To use his lame attempt at analogies, its like talking about a car, but not being able to talk about its engine. So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining. What are you so afraid of discussing. I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!Now, I see we can add guppies oscillating between having spots and not having spots to our slowly growing list of tests to prove natural selections ability to create evolutionary change. I am not really sure how showing species employing the exact same survival method on and off again shows that, but ok, if that's the best we have got so far. so be it.I personally wouldn't use the words "rigorously tested" at this point.

Let me consider a few of the intellectual gems of the collective evolutionary brain trust:Quote:---You are now talking about evolutionary change and significantly more than the process of just natural selection---Correct, because now you are talking about evolution and not just natural selection---you have moved the goalposts from just natural selection to the whole process of evolution---Don't complain that the tests don't show evolution when you asked for tests showing natural selection---You are now talking about evolutionary change and significantly more than the process of just natural selection, you are talking about taking several steps down the evolutionary path.---By the way you did a confusion in your post again, natural selection can happen without mutation, it's evolution that wouldn't happen without mutations.--Looking back at the OP I see that you made a confusion about evolution and natural selection--I will remind you that you yourself have made this topic about natural selection and whether or not it has been verified.---But natural selection does not include the mutations---So ... you don't actually want to discuss natural selection?--But Bolder-dash, I do think this appears to be a bit of "bait and switch".Hmmm...Ah Ha!! Now, I see the confusion! The problem is when I began talking about evolutionary change and how it relates to natural selection in my OP, I moved the goalposts. Because when I mentioned evolutionary change in my OP, it seems I only mentioned the phrase evolutionary change three times, and so when I began discussing evolutionary change and how it relates to natural selection it was confusing to many because I certainly didn't mention evolutionary change five times in my opening post when I discussed evolutionary change. Now I can understand perfectly why you all were jumping over each other to be the first to object (or the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth to say the exact same thing)to my discussing evolutionary change, because when I mentioned the phrase evolutionary change in that first post, none of you was aware that I was talking about evolutionary change as it relates to natural selection. If I wanted to discuss evolutionary change, and not just natural selection, I should have mentioned evolutionary change in the opening paragraph of the first posting (right after I mentioned evolutionary change for the third time perhaps).

Now, since many of you don't believe this topic has anything to do with mutations, I am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE? Please elaborate. I challenge you to do so without talking about mutations. Seeing as how natural selection and genetic drift create no new information at all, and on their own say absolutely nothing other than some organisms die before they can reproduce.Nullius in verba!

Wounded King,I am thankful to be replying to someone who has at least made a effort to actually say something in their reply.I am not really ignoring the possibility of other mutations acting in accordance with each other, but this is of course simply speculation, and in my opinion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this resistance could crop up by mere chance-in a sense it is saying that protective resistances to diseases are cropping up all the time, but we just aren't aware of them because there is no disease present to illuminate this fact. You might even speculate that we have resistance to diseases which haven't even formed yet.Likewise, you can say that an eye formed in an early metazoan creature, but this is again just a convenient speculation, and it doesn't actually address the larger picture, because there are a million and one other complex systems, many of which almost certainly could not have developed in simpler creatures. Things like bat echolocation, and the myriad of camouflage techniques used by animals, and so many other things that are unique to only a select few large mammals. You have to view everyone of these as having a long chain of truly bizarre mutations (mutations that we invariably never see in unrelated species) but nonetheless these mutations must be significant in and of themselves to confer some selective advantage..over over over again through each successive mutation. I think it stretches logic to always fall back of this idea that the mutations could have carried some other benefit before they morphed into their current one, or else are so small you couldn't ever notice them-in which case how great could the advantage be. If all of these mutations are always so infinitely small, surely many other factors would contribute more importantly to any animals reproductive success than this seemingly unlikely natural selection advantage any one mutation might create. The lion doesn't always catch the slowest gazelle after all, more likely he probably just catches the one who happens to be the closet in proximity to him when he is hungry. Nor do the the best looking people or best looking birds always end up being the ones who get the most sex. And so it is with most of life I would suggest.Which brings us back to my original point. Not all of what we call science is based on what we can determine in a microscope. Most of the larger picture is simply conjecture, based on what we can observe and how we choose to interpret it. For all of its claims, relative to most other branches of science, evolutionary theory (and its relation to natural selection in particular) requires the most speculation and is one of the least fact based sciences there are. I think one can easily say it is nearly as much philosophy as it is science.As such, anyone claiming to KNOW the answer, is not really dealing in honesty in my personal opinion. Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling

Sorry, but where is the change you are talking about?Under your scenario you still have the same characteristics you started with. Just less or more of them.

I believe this is a fundamentally incorrect statement in a number of ways.First, let's say organisms never mutated, and reproduced exactly the same way each time-could natural selection work then?Let's say that every individual in a population mutated into a rock that neither consumed nor moved, and they all spawned more rocks at the same rate of one per century- would natural selection still work?Or what if Lamark was right, then natural selection could certainly not apply.What if every mutation that ever occurred was a negative one. Could natural selection still work then?What if mutation rates were absolutely constant, so that in every third generation (say your great grandfather as a good example) an anencephalic dwarf was produced? Do you think natural selection would work?The moral of this story is, you are not right just because you say you are.And BTW, I will use whatever dam title I want, next time read the entire post instead of just the title.

Well, its an interesting point you are trying to argue. I don't know what it is proving other than any tests proclaiming the validity of natural selection do nothing to support the theory of evolution as a whole.I can see no conflict between your position and those of the new earth creationists. I think you would have been a valuable asset for the defense in the Dover school board trial.So disregarding the fact that you are showing that they prove nothing, counting up now, through 85 posts it looks like we have four, ok say five tests that anyone can point to in support of Darwin's theories. We have some finches with varying beak sizes, guppies, some with spots and some without, a disease resistance developing in, how did the author put it, "The fact that this genetic evolution has happened in a matter of decades is remarkable",And finally one study that while they admitted "linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive", was able to count up fruit flies and measure their habitat diet and size and therefore were able to calculate their ecological adaptation and compare this with their reproductive isolation; and by doing so they found that the overall association was positive with a surprisingly high level of confidenceAnd if that doesn't convince all you skeptics out there, well, then I guess nothing will.

You just wrote an entire post to say that yes its correct, there really isn't much data in support of natural selection playing a vital role in the process of evolution, because "showing natural selection on populations in the wild is hard" and because "it is not easy to attract funding" for such studies.You also did two other things that are particularly unpleasant about many of the posters I have seen here. First, you have tried to derogatorily call me an armchair creationist based simply on the fact that I called into question the effectiveness of observation of natural selection on evolution (according exactly to the topic I stated in my OP, that you still can't seem to grasp).Secondly, you along with practically every other poster on this thread trying to "defend" a position have used countless volumes of paragraphs whining and complaining about having to actually consider and discuss aspects of evolution that you prefer everyone to just shut up and except. Cosmic Chimp even have the audacity to file a complaint in another folder with the moderator that I was discussing mutations when talking about natural selection (wha wha wha, oh the hardship!). You come onto a forum which debates evolution and throw your few cents out there, and then when anyone challenges aspects of your two cents, you whine and and whinge and obfuscate, and cry like a spoiled child.This is the first time I have ever come to this forum. I post here in an attempt to gain enlightenment from others who may have another intelligent or interesting point of view to add to my world view. that is the whole point of the volunteering for rational discourse. instead all you and everyone who has posted here so far wants to do is prove how right they are. The real problem isn't me bringing mutations into the discussion, anyone who is intellectually honest knows that that is a vital ingredient of natural selection-without it natural selection does not exist, because change in the organism doesn't exist. The problem is you and others aren't really interested in honest debate about the subject of evolution. I never begin insulting anyone I am having a thoughtful discussion with, yet there have been at least 8 different people here insulting me because I challenged something they don't want me to challenge.Well, don't worry, I can take it. but don't expect me to then accept your crap as meaningful. If you are afraid of being challenged why did you come here, to get ratings brownie points from the other evolutionist brown shirts? When I began this thread I suggested a discussion about natural selections effect on evolution, with two caveats-you can't use bacteria as an example (because there is no sexual selection involved-and that is how we are trying to account for most of the variety of life we see in the world) and two-saying "you don't know what you are talking about, read a biology book" is not a form of argument. I guess I was pretty prescient about the exact tactics most of the people here would use,I am convinced there must be some good minds on this forum, but they are lost in the crowd of other loud mouths who just want to brag about how right they are without contributing anything of value at all. I got your answer finally, its not easy to show, and getting funding is difficult. Got it. Seems you don't have much else to add.Perhaps you will be around for my next thread entitled: "Has natural selection (and the vital mutations which are the essential ingredient of natural selection, of course) been tested and verified?" It should be interesting to see what whinging complaints you can come up with then. Edited by Bolder-dash, : Forgot to mention Cosmic Chimps unseemly crying tantrums.

To be honest, I am not really sure he knows what he is trying to say anymore. As such, I have proposed a new topic, which discusses the meaning of natural selection and what is the definition of the ToE.

I am prepared for them to be doing a lot of back tracking and weaseling.

I actually was talking about Huntard there not you, so my apologies there.So I have proposed that we discuss what is the definition of the ToE, so it can be clear to all in a Proposed New Threads folder, but the Admin has recommend that it be discussed here, so here goes:Since many are now advocating that natural selection doesn't carry any specific meaning in discussions of evolution, and is in fact just a generic term to mean any time stronger individuals survive, and weaker ones die naturally-(like say a bomb exploding, or mass exterminations by dictators), then I would like to have an explanation of what exactly is the meaning of the ToE so I can know how to use this term in future discussions. Since I believe it uses the term natural selection in the definition, and natural selection just means any change happening naturally (guided by a creator or not guided by a creator, etc...)It seems we now have a synthesis of what the ToE means, to such a degree, that I have no idea what the ToE means at all. Change by natural selection?Please give a definition of the ToE, and also hopefully a definition of natural selection.

So this statement can be correct-God is the ToE? Or Aliens are the ToE?Or Lamarckism is the ToE?

Parsomnium,Thank you for your reply. Just to make sure we are clear-the definition for natural selection is that "some random mutations are more successful than others"?