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


Message 267 of 302 (537502)
11-29-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by herebedragons
11-29-2009 12:10 AM


Re: What science can "prove?"
Maybe you doubt his genuinely wanting to learn anything, but why call him a religious creationist???? Because he doubts the ToE? Ridiculous.
This one is easy to answer. Because its in their playbook, on the very first page-under the chapter, "How to Deny, Obfuscate, and Make Ad Hominem Attacks Be Your Friend". They all know this is the first level of response to any logical inconsistencies they face. Cloud the argument by either claiming the person is a whacky creationist-(like for instance if they have ever gone to church or read a book or sang a Christmas carol), and if that doesn't work, the next response is "oh you just don't know what you are talking about." Finally, if all else fails, pull out the old -"do you have a better explanation?" If you were to delete the number of posts that use these three mindless responses, you would basically eliminate 4/5 of their conversations on this site.
I mean can anyone in the real world, who possess even the slightest modicum of honesty actually make the argument that NS in terms of evolutionary theory does not, by definition, include the presumption of Random Mutations which must be accounted for? What a clunker of an argument that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:10 AM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 268 of 302 (537504)
11-29-2009 3:01 AM


As far as addressing cavediver's challenge to name any biological scientists who disagree with the ToE but who aren't religious, this strikes me as a very bizarre point.
The questioning would be thus when applying for a position which meets this criteria:
"Do you believe in God?" Well, I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically, in terms of reconciling the randomness of their mutations, and being able to develop and subsist life and all its complexities in this environment and so forth, so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things, so I guess the answer must be yes.
Oh, sorry, that disqualifies you from being able to analyze the ToE!
I guess the only people who could disagree with the theory of evolution, and still not hold any spiritual belief at all would be those who just decided that they really can't be bothered to think about it. What other options are left for people who disagree with the theory? Be an atheist, but disagree with it? Go figure that one.
Interestingly, Cavediver said that no one who is smart can disagree with the ToE, and yet he also states that he used to disagree with the ToE. So either he is wrong, some smart people do disagree with the ToE, or else he is right, in which case he is also not smart, so why should anyone believe he is correct?

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2009 6:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 273 of 302 (537548)
11-29-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by RAZD
11-29-2009 8:43 AM


Re: moderator request re topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 10:23 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 10:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 278 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 10:56 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 281 of 302 (537574)
11-29-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
11-29-2009 10:34 AM


Re: natural selection, sexual selection, common ancestry
Look, I believe you are one of the more responsible poster on this site, and I appreciate that you obviously have taken time to reply.
However, as one example of not really getting it, when I talked about the illogical consequences of symmetry being selected for sexually (because to this day we still have a pretty even amount of people with symmetrical faces and people without them, and their success at reproduction doesn't appear to be effected done bit) you have referred me to a thread which discusses why we have equal symmetric parts like ears on both sides of the head, as mirror images of each other. Now while this is very interesting and all and I enjoy that discussion, it sure is nothing about the symmetry I was just talking about. The only similarity was that they both used the word symmetry somewhere in the discussion. A better way to answer that part of the post would been to have simply give your own thoughts on how you think face or body symmetry was selected for during sexual selection, and let others decide if this seems a logical enough conclusion. Or reference a study which does prove this idea is valid-and myself and others can decide for ourselves, or voice our own objections to the findings.
Secondly, you are trying to tell me that common ancestry is evidence for NS working to create life. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. What about this proves that it was natural selection causing this? What about this proves that it was RM causing this? You mean you couldn't have common ancestors if Lamarkism was true, or another as of yet unknown theory. NS is the answer simply because its the only choice you give us? Ancestry is not an explanation for HOW something happened at all, it is an explanation for what. You have problems with making finer distinctions, but continue to accuse me of lacking in understanding. I have a feeling all of you evolutionists want to be able to say what you believe, but you really don't want anyone to challenge the conclusions you have drawn. That is not debate, that is lecture.
I came here to talk about any number of logical fallacies that to me are still not fully explained scientifically with how NS could have created all of these things-but I am interested in talking about the big picture, as well as the small part-so I have simply asked for examples of scientific studies which have shown near proof of the theory. Like a complex body part, be it an eye, be it an ear, or a brain, or the lymphatic system-its worthwhile to have someone say-well, here is what I BELIEVE happened, and here it what science can PROVE happened right now.
The answer is becoming more and more clear as the thread as continued. There are some anecdotal studies, which can be interpreted many different ways, depending on how you look at it. From the examples I have seen so far, the evidence is not that convincing-guppies with oscillating spot populations, and different breeds of finches varying in population sizes during different weather conditions. That's a pretty big leap to saying, NS caused all of life on earth. No, not a pretty big leap, that is a cataclysmic leap.
Finally, you claim it is I who is unreasonable and uncivil, while at the same time (once again!) reserving your own right to decide who is the one with the knowledge and who doesn't.
It seems you are trying to tell me what I should have asked, instead of either answering the original question, or saying that you don't have any specifics but they are there. You are not going to convince me that the problem is all mine, because many of you have complicated the question. Its a simple, and yes broad question. What is wrong with that?
Thank you for your suggestion, but how about listening to my advise-if you don't want people replying to you as an arse as you say-drop your own condescension level, talk on equal terms, or don't be surprised at the result. I don't say anything more offensive to you, then you have said to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2009 10:34 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 12:44 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 284 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 12:53 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 285 of 302 (537580)
11-29-2009 12:55 PM


Finally, thanks to all who participated and made an attempt at adding something worthwhile to the discussion.
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).
From my point of view, speaking of natural selection as a generic term to mean anything including some rocks being distributed more in one area than another (while one might like to call this natural selection if they like)is not really valuable discussion-nor is it what the average person thinks of when discussing evolution. Nor does it do anything to solve the age old question of-look at all this life around me-how the heck did it get to be this way?
To answer this question, you need to validate 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 eyeballs. That IT is what makes us attracted to tall Swedish girls in small bikinis?
So this was a chance for some people to explain some incredible scientific studies they had seen, some articles they had read, 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.
Many of you have used this opportunity to complain about how the question was asked, instead of trying to say anything. Well, too bad, you don't get to decide what other people want to ask. And furthermore, instead of spending so much time telling others what they should ask, those same people should perhaps be questioning things more themselves. Clearly many here have never spent much time thinking long about it all-they were told what to think, and have just accepted it all. Its need thought, serious thought. Its not an I am right, and others don't know what they are they are talking about issue. No one owns the answer to this question. It requires more knowledge than just reading a biology book. Smart people have been thinking about these questions for many thousands of years, people smarter than you. The ability to be able to think of how we got here doesn't necessarily exist just because it occurred randomly and was naturally selected as an advantageous survival technique. But that's the only tool your side has to work with. I suggest you need a few more tools.
Cheers.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : Because no one tells me what I get to ask.

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 1:29 PM Bolder-dash has replied

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


Message 288 of 302 (537594)
11-29-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by RAZD
11-29-2009 1:29 PM


Re: have fun
It wasn't a declaration of anything other than an acknowledgment that what some people who believe in the ToE call evidence, others who have a different mindset might see otherwise.
For instance, one of the "tests" presented to show NS is real was the study of the kuru resistance in New Guinea. 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. Now this is the test that someone wanted to use to show the theory IS true, even though it didn't show what the theory says at all. Now of course, they said, well it MIGHT have been occurring over a long period of time, and we just didn't know about it.
So the tests shows a short time frame, which would CONTRADICT tenets of the theory instead of supporting it, but just because someone can say well IT MIGHT HAVE been over a long period of time, they are going to choose to believe this instead. They prefer to rationalize an artificial idea about what MIGHT be, instead of simply accepting that the test doesn't show that. That to me shows a fundamental lack of objective thought, and sort of defeats the purpose.
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. No other theory will do that. So even if a test shows otherwise, its best to still believe it MIGHT be true. Because once NS is not enough to explain things, all hope is lost. There is no other theory that is going to give you the random mutations you need to believe in atheism. Once the randomness is gone, your entire world view is gone, and that is not something most people will readily accept, so they will interrupt all data the way they want it.
So since I am not really going to get much unbiased thought here, there is not really much more to be gained. I believe one person said, the scientific community is more open minded about accepting flaws in the theory of gravity than they are in the theory of evolution. That is not very scientific in my opinion.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 1:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Larni, posted 11-29-2009 2:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 290 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 3:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 292 by penstemo, posted 11-29-2009 3:35 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 293 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 4:08 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 4:11 PM Bolder-dash 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