|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do "novel" features evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
To: Jar,
The reason why I cannot believe in that story that you've posted was that the population of dogs can go to another places to look for food for life if environment changes. If I am wrong, then, how evolution will kick in to evolve new species if population can go to another place to find for food?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
To: RAZD,
It is not I who did not understand evolution I think it is you. I am asking you a very simple question in your premise1. What do you mean "...in response to ecological challenge and opportunity"? That one is not yet explained by you. If there are ecological challenges, why the dogs for example could not just go to another place to live? Why evolve?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
No, you did not but I am only trying to make it realistic since ToE is somewhat like a fantasy or mythology to us.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
To JAR,
That is a hilarious scientific story. It is hilarious since you did not specify if the population of dogs, say doggy1, did really mutate and got its new trait, i.e., the webbed feet. Anybody can claim that! But not anybody can show that with support in science. And the worst case from ToE or evolution is that, RAZD had posted in his premiese1 that natural selection deals with ecological challenges. But doggy1 could just go to another place to find food or whatever, for safety. Therefore, there will be be no evolution. So the question will be: how come ToE says that "webbed feet" is the product of evolution? By mutation? So, natural selection did not play role for that trait? Then, I am right that nat selec is not part of evolution. Mutation is always harmful since DNA has its repair mechanism.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Other niches are already filled with species adapted to them. For the dogs to move they would have to out-compete other species in areas that those other species are already well-adapted to, and adapt to those other environments at the same time. Not as easy as it looks. But this is off topic. You need to address some of the criticisms of your posts. If I may mix metaphors, you're trailing about 99-0 in the 4th quarter and sinking fast. But they move or fight to death, that is we see in the jungle. I mean, nat selec cannot part of evolution. That means, ecological challenges cannot be the caused of the new species, it ToE is right. That is impossible. But why RAZD used that in his premise 1 in OP? I am talking nat selec since RAZD had touched it in his premise1 in OP. Now, we can talk mutation or anything you want. No problem.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
PANDA, I knew since ToE had been claming that. So, we can switch to mutation, right?
Again, nat selec is only for changes, aka, adaptation, not for origin of new species, aka, evolution of new species.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
But I am talking about nat selec in RAZD's OP. Then, let us talk about mutation.
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
TO JAR, yeah...I got it..
then...?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Nat selec cannot be the caused of evolution or new species is very simple: organisms fight to live or die without evolving, just like dogs in our example.
They adapt but they don't evolve.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Subbie = It's quite clear you have no idea what you are talking about. First, we've told you countless times, organisms don't evolve, populations do. This is not simply a matter of semantics. This is basic. If you don't understand this fact, and I believe you do not, you will never understand anything. Second, yes, sometimes a population can move in response to environmental changes. But sometimes the population evolves. If you believe this is not so, you need to explain why. 1. I knew that accdg to ToE, individual organisms don't evolve but population BUT that is an assertion and an unsupported claim since as I had been saying here that population cannot evolve since they move to a place in where safety is the first concern, just like the dog in our example here with webbed feet. Unless you show that evolution kicks in, then, that is a different story. 2. Thus, both population and individual can only adapt but not evolve. Therefore, ToE is wrong. Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Hi Pressie,
1. Those population don't evolve. They are just adapting, if you are talking about change in whatsoever "changes" you may call, those change is not evolution. It is only adaptation. 2. What part that I am saying is untrue? I am giving you a scenario of the impossibility of nat selec to be the caused of new species in a given population. It is so impossible since population moves and goes to a better place to live for life. So, what is untrue for that? 3. Geographical isolation, are you talking an island like Galapagos? But those organisms there don't evolve. They are just adapting. So, where is evolution? ToE is making a scenario and you should be sure that that scenario is in favor of ToE for it will surely be blown away by simple argument. 4. Before evolution can continue, it must start first. But the starting stage is impossible since population moves, as I said. Then, where is evolution in your scenario? 5. Now here is the fantasy part: ", individuals are born with genes for webbed feet. If the circumstances favour individuals with webbed feet, the genes for webbed feet will be spread in ..." You are saying that purely natural processes (PNP) did that genes. Or make it realistic, the dirt did it, is that right? How do you know? Can I test it? Can we repeat it? 6. Now, you told me that I don't know evolution or ToE? If I don't know it, I cannot argue with you. But one thing that you don't know, ToE has messed science in its naturalistic methodology. 150 years of messing facts and evidences, claiming something that should not be claimed. Let us debate further and you will know. Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Dr. Adequate,
You don't know what I've discovered. Then, why do you say that?Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
To: Pressie,
OK, then, let us roll. So, since mutation or random mutation is the main mech of ToE for new species, as many had been saying here, then, you believe that it is the correct one, OK, with testable evidences? Mark the word: test. Mutation is a process. Is it a natural process or a purely natural process (PNP) or intelligent process? We need to remember that nature, as we see it, can make many processes. If natural process or PNP, why you said that it is not intelligent process? For me, mutation is a PNP process for it did not help life of any living organism. For example, the causes of mutation are "Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation." from Wiki No error can help any living organisms. If you disagree, then, let us roll again and discuss. Now, I need ur answer about this.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
BY JEFFERINPOOLIS
OK, let us play with ur scenario. Consider this scenario:A species, we’ll call it a bugblatter beast, is adapted to live in the forest similar to the forests found in southern Canada and the Northern US. This forest is quite extensive and the bugblatter beast’s range extends through the whole forest. Let’s say that the bugblatter is living during an ice age and as the ice retreats and sea levels rise this forest is cut in half by a new sea. You now have two different populations of bugblatter beasts that cannot interact with each other. On the west side of the sea you have the western bugblatter and on the eastern side you have the eastern bugblatter. The prevailing winds in this area blow from west to east. As the wind blows over the water it picks up moisture and when it crosses over the land on the eastern side it drops this water in the form of rain. This makes the eastern forest far wetter than it was before the division. It has become a rain forest. The western environment has changed very little. In the eastern, now, rain forest many of the plants that thrived there before either die off or change� to survive in this new environment. Due to this change in environment the bugblatter beast’s favorite game virtually disappears. It fails to adapt to the changes. However in the new environment game is plentiful but the bugblatter needs to change� to be successful and eventually it does. Lets say that in the rain forest the bugblatter beasts large size makes it difficult to get through the underbrush and smaller thinner ones tend to be more successful. Slowly the eastern species, because smaller ones breed more often, gets smaller and thinner. In the western forest the bugblatter lives its life the same way it ever did and very little change happens. Do you agree that this scenario is possible under your definition of change or adaptation�? If so, do we now have two separate species of bugblatter beast? If not, why? Why can’t a species change in the manner I described? 1. Ok, I don't know why those population of bugblatter had become "It fails to adapt to the changes." in your post. Why they failed? They had feet, right? They had instinct to protect their lives, right? So, why they failed? Did you never think about it? 2. "Change" to what? To eat? To gather food? To hide? To reproduce? Or "change" of morphology? Please, be specific. That is I called messing in science by ToE. It is only one example. ToE is very good at this. Be specific and realistic. 3. They will change but they will never become two different species. Since species is defined as any organism that can mate and reproduce. Maybe, they will never mate themselves at first since they had the instinct of "territorial supremacy" to be protected when the two separated group meet. But no, evolution will never kicks in and there will never be no new species. Have you ever seen a dog having sex with a pig? I mean, or the dog likes to have sex to pig? I mean, the definition of species in science today is vague! The definition of species cannot be used in asexual organisms, my goodness, ToE had been around 150 years of its boasting, why ToE could not even define a single simple term like "species" that could fit all organisms? Wasting all grants and funds....let us go back to our topic... Why do I know? How do I know? Since I came from a tropical country but I live now in a cold place. My body is changing too BUT I am not evolving to something. That is personal experience, of course, I am an individual. But, I mean, I can test myself and verify it. But we cannot test and verify evolution and ToE, a sad part in science.To be specific, my skin is becoming whitish and I'm becoming more handsome. Handsome is a good trait. More handsome, more girls (just a possibility)! ROFL!! Edited by intellen, : No reason given. Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4386 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Grate now if 2 doggies are borne one has a "bad" mutation that makes him slow lazy and a bad hunter, the other has a good mutation making him faster stronger and a better hunter witch of these doggies will find a female and have children. Some of the children inherit this mutation. This is natural selection. OK, hilarious! Let us not go to doggie society so that we can study a real realistic world. Let us go to the human society. I think it is pretty easy for you. Do you think that a genius Einstein had reproduced another genius Einstein (his children)? Genius is a good trait! That is how natural selection, right? But...oh my goodness, I could not stop laughing! What did you see in reality? Or did the father of Einstein is a genius too? lol! ToE is really hilarious! I mean, not because generation1 (gen1) had trait1 will also be present in gen2 and be present to gen3! You see, that is a fantasy from ToE. I mean, yes, there is no "perfect clone" organism, but there are no organisms that are evolving. They are only adapting to live, not evolving to become new species.
Actually the possibility of evolution is grater a smaller gene pool has a better chance of excepting a trait as dominant if they are lucky that trait "good" if not its "bad" and they will likely go extinct. A relatively recent bottle neck in lions made their sperm all fucked up 3 headed sperm cells or 3 tailed ones ... normally this change would be filtered out by natural selection because it gives lions a worse chance of breeding successfully but since the gene pool was small the change stuck
That is a scenario of ToE. But that is not the real life in all organisms. What, the lions? So, the lions had studied their lessening population and found out they should shot those sperms more to solve those problem?? And asked nature (natural selection) to kick in so that the lions can shot those sperms? ROFL!! My goodness! Are you talking anime??? Where did they study? How do they know? OR When is the time natural selection saw this problem?? ROFL!! Oh, if this is science, I had rather cling to animeism! I love science, really love naturalistic science. But you are giving me hilarious post. Are you joking? Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024