|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
If you have evidence to show it to be the case, then yes, aliens, or god, or whatever else you want could be the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. However, no such evidence exists. See Parsamonium's post for what we now from the facts about how evolution happens. These are the elements currently contained within the theory. So this statement can be correct-God is the ToE? Or Aliens are the ToE? Or Lamarckism is the ToE? I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
But you have already stated that the definition of the ToE simply says any explanation for how the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. The ToE by definition (according to you) puts no constraints on what that explanation may be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: Just to make sure we are clear-the definition for natural selection is that "some random mutations are more successful than others"? I didn't say that "some random mutations are more successful than others" [emphasis mine], I used the word 'variations'. It seems you are trying to make 'random mutation' part of the definition of natural selection, but I wouldn't go as far as that. Whatever its nature, variation occurs, and that's all that matters. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
Yes.
But you have already stated that the definition of the ToE simply says any explanation for how the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens The ToE by definition (according to you) puts no constraints on what that explanation may be.
Wrong. The theory of evolution talks only about the things Parsamonium mentioned. That doesn't change the fact that the definition of the ToE is the current explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. This doesn't mean that any other explanation for how this change happens is equal to the ToE. It's a classic case of (All A = B but not all B = A). I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Forgive me, but you said:
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) By this did you not mean that organisms have heritable traits = genes ?and traits exhibit variation = random mutations ? I realize that it might be in your best interest to be as vague as possible, but let's be fair here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
Herein lies the problem by analogy.
Enter Alder Bash posing the question: Has it be tested and verified that brakes can stop a car? Enter Ray Bestos claiming: For this, that and numerous good reasons; here, here, and here, it has been tested and verified that brakes can stop a car. Enter Brem Bo claiming: For these, those and sundry good reasons; there, there, and there, it has been tested and verified that brakes can stop a car. Enter L. E. Vesques: Sex, peacocks, nice Japanese man. Alder: All that as it may be, but what is the likely hood of getting an electric car with both power and range? Ray: Ah! Well, that has nothing to do with the brakes. That has to do with the engine. Brem: Oh my! That's an engine question having nothing to do with the brakes. LEV: Exorbitant peahens. Alder: Of course it has something to do with braking. I mentioned cars five times and cars have engines. Ray: No. You see, engines make cars go. Brakes make cars stop. They are not related. Brem: That's not quite right. Motive force is irrelevant to braking. Alder: It's my question and I say it is. Concede the positions and let's move on. Ray and Brem in unison: In a pigs eye. You come here asking a specific question. We're good enough to answer it and you dismiss us based entirely upon your misunderstanding of Automotive Theory and we should concede‽ Do you know how many folks come through here in a month and tell us we don't know what we're talking about while spewing absolute nonsense about AT. Let's settle the question you asked. After that, if we feel up to it, we can get on with your other misconceptions. Thank you. Alder; But it's my question If you want to proceed, settle your actual real question, or admit your confusion and learn something. But if you want to prove us wrong you can't do it based upon your misunderstanding. Next up:
Since many are now advocating that natural selection doesn't carry any specific meaning in discussions of evolution On one has suggested anything of the sort. We are saying engines have nothing to do with brakes. Not that engines have nothing to do with cars.
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. Thank you. I'm betting there are folks all over the forum who will sacrifice a rib or two to actually help you to understand what the ToE actually says. And then stick around to help with the implications. They love the subject and love to share their extensive knowledge. But could you sort out your original question first so as not to insult them?
Since I believe it uses the term natural selection in the definition Indeed it is. Matter of fact it's Darwin's great contribution. He knew nothing of mutations or what could be mutating.
and natural selection just means any change happening naturally aaaannd no! Natural selection does not mean change. Natural selection means selection of traits by natural means. A polar bear, the natural predator of the penguin, will find it easier to catch a penguin with a wooden leg then a typical penguin as all typical penguins live south of the equator, while wooden leg penguins get to travel on their disability pensions.
Change by natural selection? aaaannd no! Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population. Change by random mutation and natural selection is thought to explain the great variety of live on Earth. One leads into the other. It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say. Anon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
No, according to your definition, the ToE is simply the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.
Seriously, who is changing the goalposts? There was absolutely no mention at all in your definition about what that explanation needs to be, just that it needs to be an explanation. If you are gong to come here and try to argue something, at least try to do so in an honest fashion. So now, do you wish to change your definition? Please go ahead-but I hope this is going to be the final change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: I realize that it might be in your best interest to be as vague as possible What's that supposed to mean?
traits exhibit variation = random mutations ? Not necessarily. God could be playing poker to decide which cosmic ray hits which nucleotide, for all I care. The point is that it results in variation. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but by your definition of what we have to work with, natural selection needs variation to work, and the way to get variation is through random mutations, thus no random mutation=no variation equals no naturals selection-yes?
If you don't mind, I just want to be sure that your definition is complete. Its pretty hard to have a discussion about anything if things like definitions keep getting changed in the middle of the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
I have to go now. I'll answer you in a few hours' time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
It is the current explanation, yes.
No, according to your definition, the ToE is simply the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. Seriously, who is changing the goalposts?
No idea. You wanted the definition of ToE, I gave it to you.
There was absolutely no mention at all in your definition about what that explanation needs to be, just that it needs to be an explanation.
Because you didn't ask for what the explanation was, you ask for the definition.
If you are gong to come here and try to argue something, at least try to do so in an honest fashion.
I am. You asked for the definition, I gave it to you.
So now, do you wish to change your definition? Please go ahead-but I hope this is going to be the final change.
No. It is the current explanation for how the changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
All of those explanations have made things as clear as mud to me. I think too many people are using 'change' and evolution in too many different contexts. So to add to the confusion I'll pitch in with my own opinions.
In my view there are ~3 things that are being variously conflated here. Facts of evolution We can observe heritable change in populations. Either directly by seeing how genetic variations spread between generations and what new mutations arise or indirectly by studying changes in phenotypes and from that genotypes and determining their heritability across generations. These can be observed independent of our understanding of the source of the mutations or of the factors leading to the changes in the proportions of each variant. This is a way to produce a purely descriptive set of data on the evolution of a population, it will capture both adaptive and neutral evolutionary changes. Theories of Evolution The main one espoused on this site is a slightly updated form of the modern synthesis. This is the marriage of traditional Darwinian theory, population genetics and the molecular genetic principles that were elucidated in the middle of last century when DNA was first being manipulated. More recently comparative developmental biology has become a key factor in our understanding of how genetic changes can give rise to morphological variation. Most of these theories are based around the primary source of genetic variation being genetic mutation, essentially random in terms of the effects on fitness of the organism but not random as in equiprobable. This variation introduces new allelic variants into the population which then change in proportion due to both selective factors and non-selective random factors. Some of the factors Bolder-dash described, such as a bomb going off, are essentially non-selective and would contribute to genetic drift rather than selection. Even really robust people will tend be killed by a bomb going off. Genetic drift is considered the main source of neutral evolution, essentially random changes in genetic frequencies from one generation to the next, while Natural selection is credited with adaptive evolution when genetic variants which improve an organisms reproductive success, normally also survival, will increase in frequency amongst the population. The Evolutionary history of life on Earth The third element that often comes up is our ability to accurate describe or infer the actual evolutionary history of life on Earth, or any specific organism. This is the fundamental basis of arguments from design. We observe an organ/system is well adapted to its task and ask how it got there. In line with evolutionary theory the biologist proposes it is the result of a succession of genetic mutations in the organisms ancestors which have been propagated throughout the population due to improving the organisms fitness. The IDer says that is all very well but where are all these ancestors? What are the genetic mutations that gave rise to this system? And this is where the principle disconnect arises because all of our best answers are mostly going to be inferences from the available evidence, such as conserved patterns of expression of homologous genes producing homologous structures in developing embryos and the ways those patterns can be affected by genetic changes, or the patterns of variation we see in organisms within and between species. There is now an increasing body of research where actual specific genetic bases are being identified for selected traits in populations, but this is still a young field dependent on advance in sequencing technology. Similarly we can infer periods of selection on specific genes/genetic sequences in populations by looking at wide samples of genetic material both within and between specific populations and within and between different species. But we are never going to be able to go back in time and get DNA samples from actual organisms ancestral to any modern lineage, with the possible exception of very recent common ancestors. We might get some Neanderthal DNA but we aren't going to get any DNA from the latest common ancestor of humans and chimps. We also aren't ever going to effectively prove the 'out of Africa' theory to someone who doesn't accept that comparative genetics can tell us anything about ancestral populations. It is frequently going to be impossible to provide the level of detail demanded by a skeptic, because the level required is frequently unrealistic. TTFN, wK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
What current explanation? That God creates everything? So is that what you are saying?
Let's face it, you were trying to be cute by answering in a stupid way, and now you have been called for it and you are weaseling.Where are you going with this, either answer the question, or stay out of the discussion. The fact is you can't answer the question, because you are already trapped by your previous statements, so now you are just playing the role of antagonist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3659 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Its a good post. I will get back to you later.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024