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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 222 of 323 (809099)
05-16-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 10:25 AM


Re: As mentioned evolutionists never answer questions
Davidjay writes:
Answer the question, Are babies different now than before..
Answer our question first, which was asked first.
How do you explain why we see black mice in areas with black rocks and brown mice in areas with brown dirt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:25 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 230 of 323 (809961)
05-22-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Davidjay
05-20-2017 12:17 PM


Re: Re:
Davidjay writes:
Humans came from Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....
Humans ARE Homininae, and humans ARE Hominidae. We didn't evolve from those groups. We ARE those groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Davidjay, posted 05-20-2017 12:17 PM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 6:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 235 of 323 (810490)
05-30-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Davidjay
05-27-2017 6:57 PM


Re: Re:
Davidjay writes:
Yes, its just semantics...... again you dont know math or SET LAW.
I didnt ask for the present grouping and nomenclature of species and kinds and breeds etc... I asked for our ancestry... aflow chart.
Changing the group via a more inclusive name by changing a letter here or there is hardly true science... just a way of grouping what exists....
Evolution says one species or kind evolved into a new species or kind..
What was our ancestor, and who was their ancestor or father.
This isn't higher math, its just a simple straight forward question, that deserves a straight forward answer..
Humans came from _________.
_______ came from _________.
________ evolved from _______.
None of which has to do with the topic. The topic is selection, not ancestry. You still haven't answered the question:
How do you explain why we see black mice in areas with black rocks and brown mice in areas with brown dirt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 6:57 PM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 237 of 323 (810511)
05-30-2017 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 AM


Re:
Davidjay writes:
Agreeed, evolutionists dont know where us humans came from....
Because none of them can answer the question...
That question is answered in other threads. The topic of this thread is selection, which you continue to avoid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 05-31-2017 11:44 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2017 2:03 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 266 of 323 (811359)
06-07-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by CRR
06-01-2017 5:46 PM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
CRR writes:
The peppered moth is an example of equivocation used by evolutionists.
Evolution is true because we have witnessed evolution in the Peppered Moth.
[All living forms have come from a single common ancestor] is true because we have witnessed [a change in frequency of existing traits in a population over time] in the Peppered Moth.
Where did any of us ever say that?
We say that common ancestry is true because of evidence, such as the correlation between morphological and molecular phylogenies. What we do is observe how random mutations and natural selection impact modern species. We observe that these mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy in living species. Therefore, we look for evidence of nested hierarchies, otherwise known as phylogenies. That is the evidence. It isn't an equivocation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by CRR, posted 06-01-2017 5:46 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 267 of 323 (811360)
06-07-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:03 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:
No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.
Since no one ever proposed a God of Selection it was dead in post 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:03 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 268 of 323 (811362)
06-07-2017 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:
Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause.
First, we do know which mutations are responsible for the differences in color for peppered moths.
Second, the better example is the pocket mice because we do know that they spend time on black rocks and in the light brown desert. We also know the mutations within the Mcr1 gene that separate the two color populations.
Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth. You seem to be yet another anti-evolutionist who doesn't understand what evolution is. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. Evolution produces diversity amongst descendants. A rhesus monkey is a primate. A modern human is a primate. Our common ancestor was a primate. Humans and rhesus monkeys are examples of how primates started with one species and diversified into many primate species. It is primates from start to finish. Again, you don't evolve out of your ancestry.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 3:25 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 269 of 323 (811364)
06-07-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Davidjay
06-03-2017 6:10 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Davidjay writes:
Get real, its a selected color change.... by a brilliant God for these moths.
Why do [you] deny that predation by birds caused the changes in moth color in these populations?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 6:10 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 12:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 279 of 323 (811447)
06-08-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CRR
06-08-2017 3:20 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.
Our ancestors were jawed vertebrates, and we are jawed vertebrates. Still in the same kind.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.
Our ancestors were tetrapods, and we are still tetrapods.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.
Our ancestors were amniotes, and we are still amniotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 3:20 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:30 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 280 of 323 (811450)
06-08-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Vlad writes:
At that, it remained the same Biston betularia while the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?
We are discussing natural selection, not speciation. Those are two different things. The evolution and origin of species requires many different mechanisms, of which natural selection is one. It is unfair to study one mechanism in isolation and expect it to recapitulate all of evolution.
The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all.
Natural selection of a single pair of alleles is reversible, but what isn't reversible is the overall evolution of the species. Again, natural selection is not the whole of evolution. Once you add random mutations then you will see an irreversible evolution of the species' genome since those mutations will accumulate over time. Focusing on just one phenotype ignores all of the other phenotypes and certainly ignores genotype of functional elements as well as nonfunctional DNA.
As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), the processes of speciation are irreversible. In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex.
I would say that macroevolution begins with speciation. Microevolution starts with at least a pair of alleles whose frequencies are changed due to selective pressures. One could even argue that microevolution begins with the mutation that caused the initial difference in fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 285 of 323 (811485)
06-08-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:25 PM


Re: rate of change
CRR writes:
So over time the descendant of fish can become a non-fish
Over time, a jawed vertebrate ancestor evolved into a jawed vertebrate descendant (i.e. Sarcopterygii).
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:25 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 293 of 323 (811576)
06-09-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:30 PM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
CRR writes:
And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?
That would be a vertebrate common ancestor evolving into two lineages of vertebrate descendants. Still in the same kind.
If you are unsure about these things then tolweb.org would be a great benefit to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:30 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 294 of 323 (811578)
06-09-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Vlad
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Re: Random NS
Vlad writes:
All in all, microevolution by no means represents evolution. Under the pressure of (non-Darwinian) NS among gene alleles, their frequencies move there and back;
Microevolution is still evolution. Walking to the curb is microwalking, and walking to the store is macrowalking. Both are walking.
Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of evolution. Well, everybody chooses for himself. At that, Modern Synthesis (still modern being already 8 decades old) theorists have vested interest in confusion of two qualitatively dissimilar phenomena. They have to stretch the notion of evolution ad absurdum because they got no other leg — beyond the so called theory of microevolution - to stay on.
The other leg is the emergence of new features due to random mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Vlad, posted 06-09-2017 8:16 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 301 of 323 (811818)
06-12-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Vlad
06-12-2017 8:25 AM


Re: Long range
Vlad writes:
And my conscionable advice to Taq: he (she) should iterate the mantra microevolution is still evolution 10 thousand times. Then perhaps the dream would come true.
Instead of using ridicule, why don't you address the actual argument? It seems that we are losing you in that you can no longer address arguments and can only ridicule those who are making the arguments.
Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random.
What is "Darwinian" NS? How does it differ from plain old NS?
Also, how are you proposing that mutations be removed from genomes every generation? I was born with about 50 mutations. You were born with about 50 mutations. Everyone was born with about 50 mutations, including our ancestors. If we go back 10 generations that is about 500 accumulated mutations in the lineage that ends with each of us.
So how is this reversible? What mechanism is there to go in and remove the mutations we are born with before they can get passed on to the next generation?
Being unable to reason in the long range prospect, Darwinists believe in natural selection envisioned as a non-random process.
We can directly observe natural selection occurring in living species. It isn't a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Vlad, posted 06-12-2017 8:25 AM Vlad has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 307 of 323 (812033)
06-14-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Vlad
06-14-2017 8:32 AM


Re: Eyes issue
Vlad writes:
Well, what would Darwinists invent in order to elucidate the strange case of Tripedalia cystophora eyes?
We don't have to invent anything.
The only person inventing stuff is you. You are the one claiming that you have to have the ability to reconstruct a mental image in order for eyes to be beneficial, and have no evidence to back it up. We can even find single celled organisms that have an eye, and they are very beneficial for those organisms.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Vlad, posted 06-14-2017 8:32 AM Vlad 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