Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 302 (537281)
11-28-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:51 AM


Re: Speciation
do you see (human) speciation occuring any time soon and if it were to happen, what would be the precursor?
The nearest thing on the horizon that could foster speciation would be space colonization.
That would lead to very different adaptive pressure to deal with different gravities, perhaps higher levels of cosmic radiation, and a host of other differences.
To the degree that any population, such as in the distant reaches of the solar system, became somewhat isolated from the bulk of the human population you could begin to get speciation.
You would probably also have some degree of founders effect, as different parts of the solar system could be occupied by different races or by groups with some other differences. These themes have been well-treated by science fiction authors.
A problem to be solved first: we don't know yet if humans are viable in weightless conditions. Gestation and birth have not yet been determined to be possible, and growing up in weightless or reduced gravity conditions may do strange things to organisms conditioned over several billions of years to standard gravity.
Stay tuned!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:51 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 182 of 302 (537286)
11-28-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
11-28-2009 12:19 AM


Re: Back to Basics
tsk tsk ICANT, now you are questioning the actual implication of the data, and that's simply not allowed. See all they have to do is prove that a test was done...when you go start throwing in this burden of interrupting what the study is actually demonstrating and unreasonable demands like this, you are playing unfair in their rules.
Plus you have gone and thrown in words like species and differences, and all kinds of other terms that they will tell you were not in the original post so are also not allowed. Plus what does the word "show" mean anyway? The study doesn't have to 'show" anything; its a study isn't it? Plus its not as if there are universities all around the world researching this stuff or something.
Geez, come on, like go read a biology book for crying out loud.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : Edited to further emphasize the absurdity of their arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2009 12:19 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 183 of 302 (537293)
11-28-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:51 AM


Re: Speciation
Peg, we are obviously witnessing new human species, and new complex body parts evolving all the time in the human population-just look around, don't you see it happening? Haven't you noticed how easy it is for all your neighbors down the street with the six digit hands to get laid on Saturday nights? Plus what about all those people in Canberra developing those bomb sniffing glands on the tops of their heads-you don't think that is going to become quite useful in a few thousand years, when we are all crawling around in tunnels hiding from terrorists? Wake up, look at the world around you would ya?
But of course, this is completely off topic, because asking for evidence of ..well, just because, ok! Got it?
Now go read a biology book and stop asking questions!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:51 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 187 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:13 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 302 (537295)
11-28-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 4:37 AM


Re: Speciation
Now go read a biology book ...
A response to your post that needs nothing adding to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 4:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 302 (537296)
11-28-2009 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 4:06 AM


Re: Back to Basics
No only does that not relate to any conceivable evolutionist reply to Peg's post, it doesn't relate to Peg's post either.
If you want to debate with the imaginary people who live in your head, may I suggest that this is not the best place to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 4:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 186 of 302 (537298)
11-28-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
11-28-2009 12:19 AM


Re: Back to Basics
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.
Now if that is evolution I am sold.
It's evolution: it's a change in the composition of the gene pool. It's not the evolution on the scale that creationists turn blue in the face trying to deny, but that doesn't stop it from being evolution.
In that it can be shown to be adaptive (and because we know that Lamarck was wrong) it is also natural selection in action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2009 12:19 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 187 of 302 (537299)
11-28-2009 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 4:37 AM


Re: Speciation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 4:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 188 of 302 (537300)
11-28-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Back to Basics
DrAdequate writes:
It's evolution: it's a change in the composition of the gene pool. It's not the evolution on the scale that creationists turn blue in the face trying to deny, but that doesn't stop it from being evolution.
why do they call it 'evolution' and not some other term which more accuarately describes the adaptation of the finchs to a changed environment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:40 AM Peg has replied
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2009 6:20 AM Peg has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 189 of 302 (537305)
11-28-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:18 AM


Re: Back to Basics
why do they call it 'evolution' and not some other term which more accuarately describes the adaptation of the finchs to a changed environment?
Evolution is the accurate term. There is no "more accurate" term.
It would appear that, like many creationists, you would like the term "evolution" to refer only to the things that you want to deny.
There are two reasons why this is not going to happen. The first is that creationists don't get to change the language of science to suit their whims. And the second is that even if you did, you guys can't agree on what it is that you want to deny.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 190 of 302 (537308)
11-28-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 5:40 AM


Re: Back to Basics
DrAdequate writes:
Evolution is the accurate term. There is no "more accurate" term.
well then that explains why we creationist get all hot and bothered about the term 'evolution'
its change has been so subtle over the years that we think of it in its original form, namely darwinian evolution of the species.
that all creatures evolved from pre existing creatures, including humans. Perhaps if the new format was publicised and explained about how it is different to its original meaning, we'd be more accepting of the term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:59 AM Peg has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 302 (537312)
11-28-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:44 AM


Re: Back to Basics
well then that explains why we creationist get all hot and bothered about the term 'evolution'
its change has been so subtle over the years that we think of it in its original form, namely darwinian evolution of the species.
That's still what it means.
The finch species under discussion was, patently, evolving.
Perhaps if the new format was publicised and explained about how it is different to its original meaning, we'd be more accepting of the term.
Now you are pretending that the meaning creationists want the word to have is its original meaning.
No, it isn't.
As to the actual meaning of the word being "publicized", you can see its actual use in biology textbooks, in scientific papers, and on discussion boards such as this one. The only people using it inaccurately are creationists, and short of hunting down and killing anyone who uses it inaccurately, I don't see what evolutionists are meant to do about this.
Evolution is any heritable change to a lineage. Not any such change that creationists want to deny has happened --- just any such change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:44 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 6:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 192 of 302 (537314)
11-28-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 5:59 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Evolution is any heritable change to a lineage? That would make any sexual reproduction evolution.
You should go read a biology book. Or go fly a kite. Or do practically anything other than posting here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by CosmicChimp, posted 11-28-2009 5:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 193 of 302 (537319)
11-28-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Back to Basics
No only does that not relate to any conceivable evolutionist reply to Peg's post, it doesn't relate to Peg's post either.
Man what a dimwit you are. You interpreted that entire post to be a parody of an argument an evolutionist would make. Hahaha
It was an exaggeration of the exact issues that an evolutionist would NEVER address you complete fool! You don't even know how to make a proper insult you twit! At least you are UNINTENTIONALLY funny! ha ha ha...
Edited by Bolder-dash, : internet problem
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : internet issues

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 5:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:43 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 6:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 194 of 302 (537321)
11-28-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
11-28-2009 5:18 AM


Re: Back to Basics
They do do this Peg, it is called 'adaptive evolution'. This distinguishes it from evolutionary changes which are simply the result of random factors, which are 'neutral evolution'. I would suggest that most de novo mutations should be considered 'neutral evolution' when they first arise, it is the following spread of specific mutations through the population by natural selection that constitutes adaptive evolution.
So these distinctions do exist, as do distinctions between genetic/ molecular evolution and gross morphological evolution, i.e. the distinction between the evolution of genotypes and phenotypes.
But if you don't make the effort to actually read about evolutionary research you probably aren't going to pick up this sort of detail. You won't get these distinctions made in most science reporting.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 5:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:52 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 195 of 302 (537324)
11-28-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bolder-dash
11-27-2009 9:57 PM


Re: Back to Basics
Bolder-dash writes:
Percy, I really think it is disingenuous of you to allow this type of obfuscation to continue for so long. Seems I really touched a nerve with you evolutionists.
Seeing something severely misunderstood does tend to bring responses that resemble "touching a nerve" from those familiar with it.
You're quite free to discuss random mutations as it relates to natural selection, but if you still don't understand that natural selection would go on even if for some mysterious reason random mutations ceased occurring then discussion will still tend to center on this misunderstanding. And you have other misunderstandings, for instance this here from your Message 192:
Bolder-dash in Message 192 writes:
Evolution is any heritable change to a lineage? That would make any sexual reproduction evolution.
Yes, precisely.
For as long as you continue to misunderstand evolution the discussion will tend to center on those misunderstandings. You say this is "obfuscating" your intended topic, but understanding evolution is a prerequisite to any discussion that would make sense.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-27-2009 9:57 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 7:10 AM Admin has replied
 Message 204 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 7:25 AM Admin has seen this message but 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