Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 121 of 302 (537060)
11-26-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 12:02 PM


Re: Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes:
What current explanation? That God creates everything? So is that what you are saying?
No, that is not an explanation, godidit doesn't answer anything.
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.
I'm not weaseling. I'm standing behind my definition.
Where are you going with this, either answer the question, or stay out of the discussion.
Nowhere, I gave you what you wanted, now what?
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.
But I have answered your question.

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 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 12:02 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 12:18 PM Huntard has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 122 of 302 (537062)
11-26-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
11-26-2009 12:11 PM


Re: Here's mine
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
No, that is not an explanation, godidit doesn't answer anything.
Neither does "We don't know".
So do you have a good explanation of how it happened?
God Bless and have a Happy Thanksgiving,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 12:11 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2009 12:20 PM ICANT has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 123 of 302 (537063)
11-26-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
11-26-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Here's mine
Hey ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Neither does "We don't know".
Indeed. But at least that's honest.
So do you have a good explanation of how it happened?
Yes, the theory of evolution is how evolution happened.
God Bless and have a Happy Thanksgiving,
Although we don't celebrate thanksgiving here, thank you, and you enjoy yours.

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 122 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 12:18 PM ICANT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 124 of 302 (537069)
11-26-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 10:16 AM


sigh.
Surely, Balder-dash, your memory is not this bad.
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.
This was already done on Message 5:
quote:
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.
The change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from one generation to the next is evolution, and in these cases it has been caused by natural selection.
In these cases it has been tested.
In these cases it has been verified.
There are many more cases, so many in fact that it is ludicrous to argue the point that natural selection is an observed fact of biological life as we know it.
Now I note that you are attempting to start another thread with poor definition of the topic (your major fault with this one, btw) on The defintion of the theory of evolution, without first dealing with the definition of evolution. My response is at Definition of Evolution Message 212
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.
The point that you are ignoring is that selection results in some surviving and reproducing better than others, and that this alone can result in diversity.
Take two sub-populations of the same species, each living in a different ecology: the traits that lead to improved survival and reproduction in one are necessarily different from the other (by definition of ecology), and thus the selection pressure will be different, and the traits selected in descendant populations will be different in the two different ecologies. Over time the variations in each subpopulation will have different frequency distributions of hereditary traits. They will evolve on different paths. They will necessarily diverge over time.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added ending
Edited by RAZD, : is
Edited by RAZD, : engls

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 125 of 302 (537070)
11-26-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
11-25-2009 12:23 PM


Re: ... Natural Selection
Hi ICANT
So what has been accomplished?
Evolution - the process - is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.
This is observed to have occurred in these instances, and thus evolution, by the process of natural selection in response to ecological change, has been observed.
Could you please give me the definition of species again ...
There are many definitions of species, and what is critical to evolutionary science is not what a specific definition involves, but whether the process of speciation is observed.
Speciation is the process where a parent population is divided into reproductively isolated sub-populations, where the daughter populations no longer exchange genetic\hereditary information by interbreeding and become distinct breeding populations now subject to independent evolution within their respective populations. This is what results in the formation of trees of relationships and common ancestry relationships.
No longer joined at the ancestral hip they are free to diverge each within their own ecologies.
Arbitrary speciation can also be recognized when the amount of hereditary change in a lineage adds up to the same degree of difference from an ancestral population that occurs with reproductive isolation, and this is commonly used to assign new species names, although this is subject to subjective interpretation (hence "arbitrary"). This does not lead to the formation of trees of relationships and common ancestry relationships, so it is relatively unimportant to the broad scheme of things.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : wach??

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 11-25-2009 12:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 3:56 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 126 of 302 (537073)
11-26-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 12:31 PM


forward?
Hi Bolder-dash, still having that comprehension problem eh?
First, let's say organisms never mutated, and reproduced exactly the same way each time-could natural selection work then?
Yes. The case examples given in Message 5 don't involve mutations during the selection period, and amazingly natural selection still occurred.
Or what if Lamark was right, then natural selection could certainly not apply.
Curiously, this was one of the ways Darwin actually considered new traits to arise, and then be subject to selection. The ability of acquired traits to be inherited has since been falsified, but that doesn't change the fact that selection operates on the phenotype - the acquired development of an organism - and thus acquired traits that are non-hereditary can contribute to selection. They just generally are not passed on to the following generation and thus do not contribute to long term change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. Note that behavior can cause acquired traits, so that if behavior is passed from generation to generation it can have an effect. See "memes" for more on this concept.
Message 91 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.
Still incorrect. New traits do not occur, but natural selection still occurs, only longer trend evolutionary change involving new traits does not. This difference is the difference between natural selection as part of evolution and evolution as an entire process.
Natural selection is a vital ingredient to evolution, and mutation is also a vital ingredient to evolution, and without both of these ingredients long term evolution of different species would not occur.
If you want to discuss the arrival of new traits in species over time then necessarily you need to discuss a mechanism for new traits to arise. We now know that new traits arise by mutations. This too is an observed fact.
Message 22: 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. If you are in the camp of suggesting that this is not a viable theory, or you believe the modern theory of evolution differs from this, feel free to say so. I hope you can agree to either accept this theory (with caveats of genetic drift, and others if you so choose) or reject it to keep the discussion on topic.
Taking this as an admission that your OP was flawed in presentation, we can indeed move forward. The basic problem remains that evolution encompasses more than just these simple processes when the overall picture is viewed.
However, be that as it may, we have now recognized two processes in the overall evolution of species:
Natural selection - the process that selects among the existing phenotypes of a species those that are best able to survive and breed, by the simple expedient of their survival and breeding within the ecology in question. This results in a descendant population with (a) a different frequency of hereditary traits from the parent population, and (b) a population that is better fit to survive and breed in the ecology in question.
Mutation - adds random variation to the mixture of hereditary traits available in a breeding population, by the simple expedient of causing changes to the genetic make-up of individuals. Whether these new variations are beneficial, deleterious or neutral is unknown until selection has an opportunity to operate on the variation/s.
If the individual organism with a new mutation dies before reproduction, the mutation is considered deleterious, and it has been selected AGAINST being passed to the next generation, and it does not result in any change to the frequency of hereditary traits available in the breeding population.
If the individual organism with a new mutation survives and breeds better than other organisms, the mutation is considered beneficial, and it has been selected FOR being passed to the next generation, and it does result in change to the frequency of hereditary traits available in the breeding population.
If neither occur then the mutation is neutral, and can still spread within the population, and it does result in change to the frequency of hereditary traits available in the breeding population.
To derive change that is more than just an oscillation between different existing traits under different ecological conditions, new traits need to be introduced, resulting in different results than just oscillations. These different results can be unrelated to the selection for ecological change, such as ones due to sexual selection for desired mating traits that are independent of survival traits.
By this process long term change in species occurs, a gradual change that is beyond the capability of mere oscillation between previous hereditary traits to develop.
An example of this is Pelycodus:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html
quote:
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.
Notice that the size distribution in P.jarrovii is completely outside the size distribution in P.ralstoni and that when speciation occurs that a divide in the size distribution quickly develops, showing that the populations are reproductively isolated.
In each population along these time-lines natural selection operates to keep the breeding population centered around the size best suited for survival in the ecology, including the ability to find mates and survive within the population.
The overall increase in size is due to new mutations that allow larger body size to develop. The speciation event occurs originally as a distribution with two high peaks, peaks that become more separated as additional mutations allow both larger and smaller individuals to exist and be part of the selection spectrum.
The result is speciation, diversity, additional features that were not in the original population, evolution.
This is but one of many examples of speciation, where natural selection is the driving force for adaptation of species to different ecological niches, the filter that weeds out deleterious mutations and disadvantageous phenotypes from the mix of individuals that form the parents of the following generation/s.
To recap:
Natural selection is an observed process, a fact of biology.
Mutation caused variation is an observed process, a fact of biology.
Other processes also contribute to the overall evolution of species, including neutral drift, individual development, behavioral patterns and changing ecologies.
Speciation is an observed process, involving mutation and natural selection, and is also a biological fact.
Evolution - the change in frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - is also an observed biological fact.
The theory of evolution - ToE - can be stated simply as the hypothesis that the process of evolution - the change in frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from pre-history, from paleontology and archaeology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.
This includes natural selection as the filter, and mutations as the source of new material for the filter to act on.
Enjoy.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 12:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 5:12 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 302 (537074)
11-26-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 8:16 AM


Re: new topic
Hi Bolder-dash,
As such, I have proposed a new topic, which discusses the meaning of natural selection and what is the definition of the ToE.
Now I note that you are attempting to start another thread without first dealing with the definition of evolution (which includes, but is not limited to, natural selection). My response is at Definition of Evolution Message 212
Enjoy.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 8:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 128 of 302 (537076)
11-26-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
11-26-2009 1:41 PM


Re: ... Natural Selection
Hi RAZD,
Hope your have had a happy holiday so far and it continues.
RAZD writes:
Speciation is the process where a parent population is divided into reproductively isolated sub-populations,
I was just wondering because in reading about the 4 species of finches in the grant study they were talking about all of them being able to breed and reproduce.
RAZD writes:
Evolution - the process - is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.
I thought evolution was a process that eventually wound up in a different place. Not something that just kept going back and forth from one state ot another.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 1:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 4:36 PM ICANT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 129 of 302 (537082)
11-26-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
11-26-2009 3:56 PM


Re: ... Natural Selection
Hi ICANT
I thought evolution was a process that eventually wound up in a different place. Not something that just kept going back and forth from one state ot another.
Then you have learned that you were wrong in this assumption. Evolution has no direction, it is just a response mechanism not a developmental mechanism.
Enjoy.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 3:56 PM ICANT has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 130 of 302 (537088)
11-26-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
11-26-2009 3:27 PM


Re: forward?
As you have just said, The change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, then natural selection.
So if the change in frequencies from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, how can we talk about evolution occurring without showing that it was random mutations? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Without the concept of random mutatins causing evolutionary change, we don't have evolution-and yet you don't want to discuss random mutations.
And I can certainly understand why you don't want to discuss random mutations, because having it make sense scientifically is pretty hard to do.
To recap-
1.Evolution is RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION
2. To show scientifically that evolution has occurred, we have to prove that it was BOTH things acting together. So if either one happens without the other, its not evolution correct?
--We can't say we have only have random mutations without Natural Selection and have say we have evolution, right?
--And we can't say we have Natural Selection without random mutations and also say we have evolution.
And we can't say either of these things, because we have already explained what the definition of evolution is.
Any tests must prove BOTH concepts, are you with me?
So now you want to prove scientifically that any tests show evolution occurred, but when asked to prove that it was TRULY RANDOM MUTATIONS occurring, all of you keep complaining that you shouldn't have to prove that it was RANDOM MUTATIONS happening!
You evolutionists sure have mastered some convenient tricks for framing the debate haven't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 3:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 5:51 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 137 by ZenMonkey, posted 11-26-2009 8:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 131 of 302 (537089)
11-26-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 5:12 PM


Re: forward?
Almost, Bolder-dash,
As you have just said, The change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, then natural selection.
So if the change in frequencies from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, how can we talk about evolution occurring without showing that it was random mutations? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
The change in frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation can be caused by:
(1) random mutations
(2) natural selection
(3) stochastic events
(4) neutral drift
(5) etc
(6) any combination of the above
Certainly natural selection only operates on the existing phenotypes of the individual organisms within the breeding population, while mutations have a time-lag before their effect is likely felt within the breeding population and then the selection process.
You can think of natural selection as operating on ancestral mutations - ones in the parent or older population - that exist in different frequencies in the current population, and that affect the population dynamics of breeding the next generation.
Without the concept of random mutatins causing evolutionary change, we don't have evolution-and yet you don't want to discuss random mutations.
Not quite. Random mutation is a part of the evolutionary process, as is natural selection. Random mutation is not a part of natural selection and natural selection is not a part of random mutation.
Only when we discuss the process of evolution can we discuss both mutation and natural selection as contributing factors.
And I can certainly understand why you don't want to discuss random mutations, because having it make sense scientifically is pretty hard to do.
Actually it is rather simple.
Say you want to throw all 6's with 10 dice. You can throw for a long time before getting this result, but if after every throw you take the ones that are 6's and set them aside, you will reach all 6's in considerably shorter time.
The throws are random results, selection picks the 6's at each generation of throws. If you only have one throw, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely low for either approach. Thus the additional generations of throws represent the effect of random mutations on the previous non-6's population to also adapt and become 6's in the final population. (please note that this is an analogy and does NOT mean that the same mutations arise in subsequent generations, rather that "6" represents a fitness level within the ecology, as several different mutations can result in fitness in different ways).
To recap-
1.Evolution is RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION
Among other processes, yes, and these are the major sources of new traits and the selection of new traits in the overall scheme of life.
2. To show scientifically that evolution has occurred, we have to prove that it was BOTH things acting together. So if either one happens without the other, its not evolution correct?
Not quite, as noted back at the beginning, the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation can occur through just natural selection, and it can occur through just mutations because the frequency does change as a result.
However, the long trend in evolution is for both to occur in a multi-step pattern:
  1. During breeding the effects of mutation are seen in the new generation being produced, plus the effect of selection of old mutations on the current breeding population.
  2. Then natural selection operates on the individual phenotypes, the developed organisms, that are a product of their genetics and the developmental environment, including learned behaviors.
  3. The ones that survive and breed then contribute to the next generation and
  4. go to (1) ...
One follows the other, even though both are occuring simultaneously, their effects are felt at different times in the lives of the individual organisms.
So now you want to prove scientifically that any tests show evolution occurred, but when asked to prove that it was TRULY RANDOM MUTATIONS occurring, all of you keep complaining that you shouldn't have to prove that it was RANDOM MUTATIONS happening!
And yet, curiously, we have evidence of each happening, both in the lab and in the field, AND we have evidence of the overall pattern of evolution, involving both mutation and natural selection, resulting in speciation events, where reproductively isolated populations are developed, by mutation and natural selection, from a parent population.
Enjoy.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 5:12 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 6:26 PM RAZD has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 132 of 302 (537091)
11-26-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by RAZD
11-26-2009 5:51 PM


Re: forward?
Not quite. Random mutation is a part of the evolutionary process, as is natural selection. Random mutation is not a part of natural selection and natural selection is not a part of random mutation.
Only when we discuss the process of evolution can we discuss both mutation and natural selection as contributing factors.
So will you now concede that in order to discuss evolution, we need to discuss both? Or are you still equivocating on this point? In other words, its only evolution if it has both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2009 6:42 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 8:14 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 133 of 302 (537092)
11-26-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Bolder-dash
11-26-2009 6:26 PM


Back to Basics
Bolder-dash, you are showing an astonishing capacity for missing the point. Is this really so hard to understand?
So will you now concede that in order to discuss evolution, we need to discuss both {natural selection and random mutation}?
I don't think that anyone is disputing that. To discuss evolution as a whole one must discuss both natural selection and random mutation. The point that is being made here is that you didn't start a topic about evolution-as-a-whole. You started a topic about natural selection.
Natural selection can be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. Random mutation can also be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. It is necessary to discuss both subsets in order to discuss the whole, but it is not necessary to discuss subset A in order to discuss subset B. Thus, it is not necessary to discuss random mutation in order to discuss natural selection. Got it?
In case you still don't see it, consider this. Darwin wrote about natural selection extensively in the Origin, but random mutation had not been discovered. If we must discuss random mutation before we can discuss natural selection, how was Darwin able to write on the subject? How come most of what he did write is still relevant today?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 6:26 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 6:59 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 135 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 7:08 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 134 of 302 (537093)
11-26-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Granny Magda
11-26-2009 6:42 PM


Re: Back to Basics
That is completely false. Please reread my opening post. I mentioned "evolutioary change" three different times. You are continuing to propagate a myth.
Your problem seems to be that I didn't include my entire post in the title of the post. I suppose if one did that, there would be no need for a title, because the post would be the title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2009 6:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2009 8:00 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 135 of 302 (537094)
11-26-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Granny Magda
11-26-2009 6:42 PM


Re: Back to Basics
I don't think that anyone is disputing that. To discuss evolution as a whole one must discuss both natural selection and random mutation.
So can I now at least pin you down to this point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2009 6:42 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024