|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bolder-dash,
Please consider that if not one person here understands what you are trying to talk about, that the fault is in your failure to communicate what you want to talk about.
I started the thread and I said I wanted to talk about NS as it relates to EVOLUTION.! Does this mean that you want to talk about the effects of random mutations or not? Do you want to discuss first what evolution is, and then what natural selection means in that context? Or do you want to discuss first what natural selection is, and then how that fits into the context of evolution? Do you agree with this definition of evolution?
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.
If not, why not? Do you agree with this definition of natural selection? Natural selection - Wikipedia
quote: If not, why not? Do you agree with the rest of the article as it continues
quote: Is there any part of that which you disagree with? What and why? See also the section on Evolution by means of natural selection - is this what you want to discuss? There is also a section that relates to speciation, the formation of new species and how natural selection contributes to this process. This is where diversity increases - is this what you want to discuss? Please give us something other than complaints to work with. I'm happy to discuss these things with you, but you need to lead the discussion with some idea of what you want to accomplish and what your expectations for resolution are. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, herebedragons,
My second problem with NS is that it doesn't appear to always select the best trait for survival. By the definition of NS ... ...traits that improve the ability of the species to survive are selected for. And while I realize that it is somewhat speculative, I am not sure that traits we find in modern examples are always the most fit for survival. Part of the problem is that "survival of the fittest" is a misleading paradigm, and a better one would be "survival of the barely able" -- any individual that survives and breeds passes on their genes to the next generation, so just good enough is enough to pass the NS "test". Over time the more successful ones, if repeatedly tested will prevail in higher numbers, but the marginal ones will still be a part of the mix.
The example I am thinking of is bipedalism in humans.... It might be best to take this to another topic:
Evolutionary History of Apes is one that is open, and discusses ancient ancestors. See Message 18. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy, thanks for trying to arbitrate, we'll see if Bolder-dash takes it in.
Isn't "Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation." really just a definition of Natural selection? I mean, this doesn't really make make any reference to variation or mutations at all? What is the difference between your definition for evolution and your definition for 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."? It seems to say the same thing except using different words. I mean "change in frequencey" is basically natural selection. Isn't it? The change in frequency of hereditary traits is the result of natural selection, of new mutations, of genetic drift, of random disasters, etc. When this change is observed we can say evolution has occurred. Natural selection is one of the processes that cause evolution, and it specifically addresses survival and reproductive success of individuals - a small correction to your previous post: NS operates on individual phenotypes, the developed organism that results from their genotype and developmental process (thus including environmental factors and acquired factors in the selection process). Certainly when NS occurs then evolution occurs, but evolution can also occur without NS. When mutations occur, and add new hereditary traits, evolution occurs. NS causes the change in frequency, evolution results from it being changed. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
I understand this to say that if you start with one species of finches with small beaks they would develop the large beaks over a period of time. No. Evolution is a response mechanism. Change occurs in response to a change in the ecology of the species. Random mutations and genetic drift can cause some difference in the average values of a population, but it is undirected (hence "random" and "drift" terms).
It shows 14 different species of finches that have different size beaks and during wet times the small beak finches increase in number and the large beak finches decrease in number. In dry times the large beak finches increase in number and the small beak finches decrease in number. This is natural selection: those that are better adapted to the changed ecology survive and breed better than those that are not as well adapted.
Now if that is evolution I am sold. Natural selection is a part of evolution. One part of many. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ICANT
I am following moderator request to stick to the original topic. For me, this means waiting to see if Bolder-dash defines what he is looking for before making any further response. For Bolder-dash -- please define what you think constitutes "evolutionary change" so we know what you want. Please be as specific as possible. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bolder-dash, thanks, and you'll excuse me if I am a bit dense here,
Scientifically solid evidence, not conjecture because we have no other theory, that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth. Evidence of what specifically. We have evidence that change occurs through the dual mechanisms of mutation and natural selection (plus others). They are distinct processes, but the action of both is more than the action of each individually: both are needed to change a species outside the ancestral pool of hereditary traits. Mutations are needed to add new hereditary traits to the mix available for natural selection to then act, and natural selection then has the opportunity to make use of new traits through their adaption\fitness to an existing ecology. Sometimes this occurs and sometimes it does not (stasis, for example). Ultimately this two step of changes from mutations and natural selection, can result in speciation, where daughter populations become reproductively isolated, either through genetic change/s, developmental change/s or behavioral change/s in the breeding within each of the daughter populations such that they do not breed with the other anymore. We have evidence that speciation occurs, thus dividing one breeding population into two (or more) newly isolated breeding populations. This is sufficient to show that common ancestry is an observed (in local time) result of evolution through mutation WITH natural selection. Common ancestry explains the diversity of life we see on earth. What type of change are you specifically looking for.
Message 256: So now science has to show, that not only can NS (by the use of RM!) make complex body parts through a RM creating some small advantage of survivial in a population, and slowly becoming selected for, and then as it becomes a more common trait in the population, a further mutation down the bloodline could be added to that mutation (if you don't agree this is the claim the ToE, ie. Dawkins and so man others, makes for how complex body parts can be formed, please provide your own idea of how the theory claims this is possible) to eventually shape this form. You mention complexity, can you define what you mean by complexity? Please be more specific about what you want to see. The more specific you are the easier it will be for us to provide the evidence you seek. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Balder-dash,
The question was-what scientific proof do we have for NS being the great cause of the evolutionary cycle that makes up the diversity of life as we know it (an inference that I think was fairly obvious). Which was answered. Or at least the part that was obvious and applicable to actual evolution, as actually used by scientiests ... Have you figured out what "evolutionary change" is yet? Please let us know eh?
To answer this question, you need to explain NS more fully, not just in terms of making some beaks sizes more common at one time of the year, and less common at other times- but how can it make this complete package. Can it combine with RM, with genetic drift, without some other forces to do what we see? You can believe that it can if you wish, but can you really show that it has. That IT is the thing responsible for making eyes. That IT is what makes us attracted to tall Swedish girls in small bikinis? Once again you are using natural selection to replace all of evolution, from process to science. All of this can be explained by the theory of evolution, ToE, which involves natural selection and mutation and etc etc etc, ... but not by natural selection alone, because NS ≠ ToE, and ToE > NE. Have you figured out what "complexity" is yet? Let us know eh?
So this was a chance for some people to explain some incredible scientific studies they had seen, which really convinced them, that there is no other way to explain what is going on around us. I say to first prove this, you have to prove that the mutations are indeed random, because if they aren't then it really isn't NS making the decision at all, it is some other force. But alas, there isn't much, and what there is is open to interpretation in any number of ways. So that in itself is an answer. Ah yes, we failed to explain every little thing to your satisfaction with natural selection, therefore evolution is a total failure? Sorry, the logic of this eludes me.
Cheers. Does this mean that you have decided to declared victory and are now taking your leave .... before actually dealing with the questions of what you mean by "evolutionary change" and "complexity" .... one wonders why? 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Hi Balder-dash, I see that summary time is upon us (threads are often limited to 300 posts, and if you think this is harse, then please review your own posts to see how few addressed your topic). You have been asked several times to answer these questions to help define your position:
The first one was asked in Message 5 and has not been answered yet, even though Balder-dash has made 66 posts that are mostly complaints about being misunderstood. Instead we get additional comments that raise more questions than they answer, such as:
However, the test didn't show a slow gradual process of evolution as Darwin claimed, it showed a rapid change to an environmental pressure-the exact opposite. ... So the tests shows a short time frame, which would CONTRADICT tenets of the theory instead of supporting it, This shows a typical failure to understand the mechanism of natural selection and the difference between natural selection and evolution. First off, this raises the question, why is this a contradiction? The same process occurs just in a different time frame from the one you have fixed in your mind as being Darwin's. Second, Darwin wasn't committed to a slow time frame, he predicts "punk-eek" after all, can you show where he absolutely requires natural selection of be slow and occur over many generations? See Darwin Online for all his works in searchable text. Third, you are talking about natural selection in this specific example, and not evolution, Dawin's theory of Descent with Modification through Natural Selection was that the descent with modification usually took a long time, but that natural selection was virtually instantaneous when death occurred in an individual organism before it reproduced. Why should an example where a whole bunch of people died NOT occur rapidly by comparison to the time it took for the (one of several ways) mutation to occur in the ancestral population (where it had to have been several generations in the past to spread as far as it did) -- why should death be unexpectedly rapid? A contradiction would mean that it was not natural selection at all but something else, and this is patently false. By the way, natural selection operated in two different modes in that example: it selected people with the beneficial mutation to survive and breed, and it selected the people with the behavioral modification (don't eat the dead person) to survive and breed. The second instance of natural selection was more complete and even faster than the mutation selection. Note that for this second selection, no mutation was needed, just natural selection of a different behavior pattern. Behavior patterns can change in a population in a generation, and if you want I can furnish examples where this was observed and documented. If you see a film at high speed and at slow speed you still see the same frames, the same movements and scenery. Certainly if something can happen in a short time, then it can also be spread out over a longer time.
Now, I can certainly understand why so many people WANT to believe in NS, because it is the only theory that can protect their believe in atheism. Please stop insulting my intelligence: I am no atheist, I am a deist, and deism has absolutely no problem with evolution in general and natural selection in particular -- it would be the method that was set up with the creation of the universe for the formation of life as we know it, putting in place the "natural laws" that govern evolution and other aspects of the universe as we know it. Science is agnostic. It explains how things happen, not why. Why do you think you need to discuss atheism in order to discuss natural selection?
So since I am not really going to get much unbiased thought here, there is not really much more to be gained. Of course science is biased. Reality is not up for vote, and so it is biased to what the evidence actually shows rather than any - ANY - a proiri assumptions. When you refuse to define what it is you are really looking for, you will reap what you sow eh? It seems you generate more questions for you to answer than you resolve by your failure to answer the previous questions. I started with one, now we have at least four on my book that are not answered (including the first one still unanswered), and several other questions by others. Summary - unanswered questions (rather than resolutions of issues):
You reach resolution by answering questions, not ignoring them.From my perception Balder-dash has ignored several corrections to his posts, refused to answer basic questions about explaining his position that would lead to a more informed debate, and behaved in a rather childish manner. In the end he concludes that he is "right" because nobody has been able to change his mind by providing something he has refused to define. Personally I am glad that this farce of a thread is put to bed. Enjoy. Edited by Admin, : Hide non-summation, it's actually a reply to Bolder-dash. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024