Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


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 91 of 302 (536951)
11-25-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wounded King
11-25-2009 2:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2009 2:33 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 2:05 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 93 by lyx2no, posted 11-26-2009 2:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 94 by Wounded King, posted 11-26-2009 5:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 11-26-2009 6:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


(1)
Message 92 of 302 (536959)
11-26-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 11:13 PM


There you go again
Bolder-dash writes:
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.
How many times do we need to tell you this? Where the change comes from is irrelevant. Mutations have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. They just happen to be the way we know changes occur in DNA, but it doesn't matter what causes those changes, it doesn't even matter if there are no changes at all, natural selection will still work. Get this basic stuff right before you go telling people of for "crying" about you going off-topic in your own thread.
The problem is you and others aren't really interested in honest debate about the subject of evolution.
Really? Who's the one who started moving goalposts again?
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.
First, we're not insulting you, and second, you haven't challenged anything.
Well, don't worry, I can take it. but don't expect me to then accept your crap as meaningful.
So, when someone is not nice to another person, you can dismiss whatever he says outright? Good cause when you wrote:
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.
You weren't being nice, so, we get to ignore everything else you say?
If you are afraid of being challenged why did you come here, to get ratings brownie points from the other evolutionist brown shirts?
Who cares about ratings here? Plus, they were only recently introduced, and most don't like them anyway. I was here long before the ratings got implemented, and so were many others.
I guess I was pretty prescient about the exact tactics most of the people here would use,
Not really, because asking about us mutating into rocks really shows you apparently don't know how evolution works.
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.
Did I not contribute anything valuable? You even complimented me in a weird way.
Got it. Seems you don't have much else to add.
Why should he need to add more?
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?"
For the umpteenth time, mutations are not necessary for natural selection.
It should be interesting to see what whinging complaints you can come up with then.
Not nice again, everything you say is therefore irrelevant.

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 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 93 of 302 (536960)
11-26-2009 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 11:13 PM


Still
(and the vital mutations which are the essential ingredient of natural selection, of course)
I don't know whether anyone has bothered to mention it to you but mutations are irrelevant to natural selection. All that is necessary for natural selection to occur is that the members of the population are not all identical, for each to an unlimited food supply, bountiful sexual pairings, and a perfectly stable environment that is infinite in scope. Sure, it is also part of the modern version of the ToE that mutations are a handy source of variety, but that's a different subject.
Say we have two penguins. One is typical and the other has a wooden leg. Natural selection can begin working on them right away without waiting for a mutation.
Sorry if I'm repeating something I may miss a few dozen time in earlier posts, but It couldn't have been there or you'd not have written this again.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 94 of 302 (536969)
11-26-2009 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 11:13 PM


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.
No I didn't, I pointed ou that there is plenty of research but because scientists aren't idiots they do that resarch on the sort of subjects where it is practical, i.e. all the microbiological research and short genertaion organism research such as on Drosophila that you just handwave away.
There is plenty of research 'in support of natural selection playing a vital role in the process of evolution' but you decided right from the start to disbar the vast majority of it and you have continued to reject all the examples you have been given without giving any coherent reason why.
yet there have been at least 8 different people here insulting me because I challenged something they don't want me to challenge.
No, there are 8 people insulting you because you came in with a question, when it was answered you blew off the answers and said that in fact you were looking for another question to be answered and then blew off all the answers on that as well, not to mention insisting that it was the question you were asking all along, and you're still doing it! You didn't mention mutation in your OP, you specifically focused on natural selection both in the OP and your title.
No one has a problem with bringing mutation into the debate, provided you actually realise that it is something distinct from Natural Selection, at the moment you just keep on insisting you are right in lumping mutation in with natural-selection, and you aren't.
Did you ever wonder if the reason you run into so many people telling you you are wrong because you don't know a damn thing about the biology you are trying to discuss is in fact because you are wrong because you don't know a damn thing about the biology you are trying to discuss? You say you are 'here in an attempt to gain enlightenment from others who may have another intelligent or interesting point of view', but you don't seem interested in our points of view, or the reserach that has been published, only on asking why people haven't observed this thing you think they should have or why they haven't yet got round to sequencing the whole genomes of the entire population of the western world to look for the natural prevalence of one specific mutation with a protective effect against kuru.
Maybe you should look at Olivia Judson's excellent recent article in the NY Times and then you can come back and tell us more about the wonderful way that mutations just magically appear in a population when they are needed.
I got your answer finally, its not easy to show, and getting funding is difficult.
Apparently you didn't get my answer, it is almosy trivial to show in the sort of short generation microbial experiments that can be readily performed in a lab. It is much harder in wild populations of organisms with much longer generation spans in the order of months or years because you ideally need to follow a population over multiple generations to be able to account for random factors. You chose to artificially restrict where examples could be drawn and then go on about how few examples were presented? There are also plenty of other examples but it was pretty clear after only the first few responses, like to RAZD's initial one that in fact examples of studies showing natural selection in action weren't actually what you wanted, which is probably why no one bothered to present any more. To now act as if only being presented 4-5 examples was because of a lack of them is disingenuous in the extreme.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 95 of 302 (536973)
11-26-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 11:13 PM


Hi Bolder-dash,
Please let moderators handle moderation issues. If you are having problems with discussion then you should post to Report discussion problems here: No.2. Participants should keep their attention focused on the topic and not on the perceived misdeeds of other participants.
About the nature of the actual topic of discussion, I thought this was resolved back in Message 22 when you said:
Bolder-dash in Message 22 writes:
Ok, fair enough, I am willing to modify my statement to include what is the modern day accepted form of Darwinian evolution..that is that random mutations are the ingredients for change, and natural selection the filter.
Participants have mentioned a couple additional important details about how they believe evolution works. These are best explained by those who have already been talking about them, but let me briefly describe each one so it is clear what I'm referring to. First, it has been suggested that mutations are not necessary for natural selection to operate. For example, if a region experiences sudden and dramatic climate change then natural selection will immediately begin weeding out those individuals and species not sufficiently well suited to the new environment.
Second, it has also been suggested that mutations are not the only source of evolutionary change. For example, all species already have a great store of variation within their genomes, and these variations can be expressed to varying degrees within a population, ranging from not at all to fully expressed. Natural selection can perform profound changes on a population by changing the frequency and degree to which various genomic traits are expressed in the phenotype.
To everyone: While keeping in mind that no one wants to read book-length messages or even long essays, I think that some explanations have been spread out across too many posts, with the result that some explanations haven't been grasped.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 96 of 302 (536988)
11-26-2009 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by lyx2no
11-26-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Still
Lyx2no writes:
I don't know whether anyone has bothered to mention it to you but mutations are irrelevant to natural selection.
I know that Darwin's idea of natural selection was that some life forms that were best suited to the environment would survive better then those that didnt. But I thought that modern evolutionists taught that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection would choose the ones whose gene mutations made them most fit for their environment and eventually they developed into new species.
(ie macroevolution)
You seem to be saying that Mutations are not required to form new species, is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by lyx2no, posted 11-26-2009 2:14 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 8:02 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 98 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:16 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 99 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:20 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 11-26-2009 8:50 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 97 of 302 (536992)
11-26-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Still
Peg writes:
But I thought that modern evolutionists taught that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection would choose the ones whose gene mutations made them most fit for their environment and eventually they developed into new species.
Yes, we know the changes in DNA are because of mutations, but that is irrelevant to the working of natural selection.
You seem to be saying that Mutations are not required to form new species, is that correct?
No, he isn't. He's saying that mutations aren't necessary for natural selection to start acting on something.

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 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 98 of 302 (536994)
11-26-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Still
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 11-26-2009 8:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 3:34 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 99 of 302 (536995)
11-26-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:46 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM Peg has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 100 of 302 (537001)
11-26-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 8:16 AM


Why?
To be honest, I am not really sure he knows what he is trying to say anymore.
Then why do you not point out my errors?

Hi peg
Hunter nailed it. Note also where I write:
quote:
Sure, it is also part of the modern version of the ToE that mutations are a handy source of variety, but that's a different subject.
Natural selection will work on any variety from any source that differentially effect the reproductive success of the individual members. That is one reason why NS is in itself at topic and needs to be discussed separately from RM when one is discussing how NS steers the ToE. Otherwise some folks might get them confused as related mechanisms.
Using again the car analogy: What makes a car go is unrelated to what makes a car stop. One can drive a car without breaks and stop a car without an engine. So when we talk about breaking horsepower we can utterly ignore whether the engine is gasoline, diesel, or electric.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 9:39 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 139 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:16 AM lyx2no has not replied

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


(1)
Message 101 of 302 (537002)
11-26-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:46 AM


Speciation
You seem to be saying that Mutations are not required to form new species, is that correct?
It is correct in theory that new mutations are not required for one initial interbreeding population to become two populations that cannot interbreed.
Let us assume there is one initial population with a wide genetic variety, there may be some individuals within that population that are for some reason genetically incompatible. These incompatible organisms produce only sterile or non-viable offspring. These individuals still form part of the same population as they can still interbreed with other members of the population who do not have the specific genetic features associated with the incompatibility so there is still considerable capacity for gene flow between the sub populations of organisms with these incompatibilities in the whole population over the generations.
If for some reason the population becomes divided then genetic drift may cause these incompatible genetic traits to become fixed in different populations. In that case if they consolidated into one region again we would expect to see little if any successful breeding between the populations and we would consider them to have become distinct species.
This can also result from traits being selected for but genetic drift is a perfectly suitable source of fixation in this case. Indeed there is much debate as whether it is selection or drift that is more likely to give rise to such incompatibilities. I would suspect that true genetic post-mating incompatibility is likely to be due to drift more often than pre-mating behavioural isolation, which seems like a prime target for sexual selection.
Obviously the source of the initial variation in the population is going to be mostly due to mutations, but no new mutations are required for the two reproductively isolated populations to arise.
I suspect that this may not be 'new species. (ie macroevolution)' as you were thinking of it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:18 AM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 102 of 302 (537016)
11-26-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by lyx2no
11-26-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Why?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 11-26-2009 8:50 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 10:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 104 by Parasomnium, posted 11-26-2009 10:29 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 11-26-2009 11:09 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 103 of 302 (537021)
11-26-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 9:39 AM


Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes:
I actually was talking about Huntard there not you, so my apologies there.
Wow. Thanks.
Please give a definition of the ToE, and also hopefully a definition of natural selection.
Sure.
ToE:
The explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.
NS:
Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.

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 102 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 9:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 10:34 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 141 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:21 AM Huntard has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 104 of 302 (537024)
11-26-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 9:39 AM


The elements of the theory of evolution
1. Organisms have heritable traits (genes)
2. These traits exhibit variation (random mutation)
3. Some variations are more successful than others (natural selection)
4. Successful variations spread throughout the population (evolution)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 9:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 10:43 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 111 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 11:07 AM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 105 of 302 (537025)
11-26-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Huntard
11-26-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Here's mine
Please give a definition of the ToE, and also hopefully a definition of natural selection.
Sure.
ToE:
The explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.
So this statement can be correct-God is the ToE? Or Aliens are the ToE?
Or Lamarckism is the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 10:06 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 10:41 AM Bolder-dash 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