Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

This paragraph shows a common misconception about evolution: The timing of the mutation is concurrent with the timing of its value. It is not. The mutation may have happened a thousand generations prior.Say a simple mutation makes an apparently unimportant change in an apparently unimportant protein. This protein is passed down in happenstance fashion for twenty thousand years and now 2% of the tribe has it. Then along comes a virus that just happens to use that particular protein as its gateway into the cell. Our virus also finds that the modified protein "tastes" like crap and shows a reluctance to "eating" it; a reluctance that gives the carriers immune system time to out pace our virus. A dozen generations down the road, through the attrition of non-carriers, our modified protein is now found in 20% of the population. That may mean that there are now enough people that are resistant to the virus that an epidemic can not be supported. The virus becomes rare. Ta_da!Straw men understandings of evolutionary mechanism can lead to erroneous arguments. That a mutation happens at just the right time is very unlikely and would certainly be a problem. luckily it doesn't have to. Some folks might want to give scientist a bit more credit for having possibly resolved some of these simple misunderstandings decades ago. long before the new guy reapplied the misunderstand.

---

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

Wrong. You have one population of finches with a bell curve range of beak sizes. With short term fluctuations in the the environment the center of the curve moves back and forth. However, if the environmental change is long term the displacement of the center of the curve may become permanent if all of the gene carries at the distal extreme are eliminated.If this environmental change did not occur over the entire range of the finch population then the curve may become bi-modal. If the reproductive range of individual finches is much smaller than the range of the population then the bi-modality can increase until there are two separate population that do not interbreed. There is a name for this but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head. Help me out ICANT.AbE: Right in the neck.Edited by lyx2no, : Ninjad.Edited by lyx2no, : "will" to "may".

---

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

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.

Then why do you not point out my errors?

---

Hi pegHunter 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.

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: 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. 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? Indeed it is. Matter of fact it's Darwin's great contribution. He knew nothing of mutations or what could be mutating. 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. 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.

Hi Peg Evolution is the process not the product. Have one of your friends take a walk from Perth to Darwin to Brisbane to Adelaide to Perth. While she does that, you get yourself a 1,000,000:1 scale map of Australia and mark it with a pin every sixty seconds. You will deny walking before the Sun goes down.AbE; Well, don't.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

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

Sand? Show me where anyone suggested sand.

---

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

NS doesn't use RM. NS can not produce or predict RM. NS use heat and cold, flood and drought, bounty and austerity, and sundry other poles with all the gradiant inbetween to bring death to the unwary (or a lesser reproductive sucess, whichever comes first). NS does use the tools at its disposal to filter RMs that alter the organisms ability to reproduce.Your way of saying it confuses me. It is like my saying I use the open grain of mahogany to apply paste filler; wherein, actuallity, I use anything from the palm of my hand to a fine, stiff brush to apply the paste filler to the open grain of mahogany. If I were to say the former to a pleb initiate I might expect him to try using mahogany scraps to apply paste filler. Think of the damage he could do.I hope this is helpful in your quest for knowledge.

---

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

[sidebar]Can you pin-point these beaches. I sould like to go see this for myself as I'm just up the road.[/sidebar]

---

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

Ok, you mean like stuff and junk. Now we're narrowing it down.

---

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

Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by lyx2no, : Sp.Edited by lyx2no, : Hide OT.Edited by lyx2no, : Weaken one statemnet and strengthen another.Edited by Admin, : Hide non-summation, it's actually a reply to Bolder-dash.

---

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