Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 323 (809716)
05-20-2017 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Davidjay
05-20-2017 10:52 AM


Re: As mentioned evolutionists never answer questions
You say babies are different, ...
Which they are, from height and weight to fingerprints and iris patterns, each is unique individual.
... and that consequently we are evolving and branching out from the original babies of our ancestors
Ah, no. That is you pretending to know something about evolution while failing at it. It's just same old same old family tree branching, from grandparents to parents to children to grandchildren, ... etc etc etc.
But we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, and the species isn't branching into new species (yet). A species branches when it divides into two reproductively isolated populations that evolve independently of each other. That does not apply to humans, because while it has divided into several different populations in several different ecologies, they remain reproductively compatible and continue to share genetic traits between different populations.
You illogically deny that this shows your racist doctrine, even though you want to say and state and claim that new babies are different. Thats ridicuolous...... either state babies are the same like creationists say, or state they are differtent and accept the racist doctrine foundation.
So far, it seems, only you think the branching of family trees is somehow racist (although you have failed completely to make your case for this on your thread Evolution is a racist doctrine). You have several questions there to answer related directly to you silly claim.
You illogically deny that this shows your racist doctrine, even though you want to say and state and claim that new babies are different. Thats ridicuolous...... either state babies are the same like creationists say, or state they are differtent and accept the racist doctrine foundation.
Your inability or wilful failure to understand the concepts of evolution is not my problem.
We humans are the same as always since the BEGINNING, our children do not have different brains and systems and skin and hair than us,
Your doctrine to put it mildly is a lie....
Humans are not evolving, recombination of genetic material is our created variation by our CREATOR, to give variety..
Inbreeding is not evolution, colour change is not evolution..... take a course in genetics and retract your inconsistent claims.
Evolutionists ploy are as bad as the leader who said, you just have to tell a big enough lie, and then people will accept it because it is BIG and outrageous.
Evolution is a BIG LIE
EvolutionisaBIGLIE
Eight pages
Where is your diagram of people's ancestry? Where is your evidence that validates that diagram?
Without a real alternative backed by real evidence, all you have is your personal opinion.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Davidjay, posted 05-20-2017 10:52 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Davidjay, posted 05-20-2017 12:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 323 (809745)
05-20-2017 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Davidjay
05-20-2017 12:17 PM


Which thread do you want this answered on? Updated
You've posted exactly the same thing on four threads (so far anyway), which is spamming and a troll trait.
Which thread do you want the answer on:
This one (Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' Message 228)
or
A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 127
or
Evolution is a racist doctrine Message 347
or
The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Message 8
or do you want me to pick?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy
Update - See A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 131 for reply

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Davidjay, posted 05-20-2017 12:17 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 250 of 323 (810799)
06-01-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Davidjay
06-01-2017 9:30 AM


Selection happens, it is observed -- time to put this thread is Summary Mode?
Peppered moth Lie, is just a color change and as we know or any geneticist knows or any elementary biologist knows, a color change ...
Means a different phenotype.
... does not mean there has been evolution changing one species into another.
and people educated in evolution know that evolution is not "changing one species into another" but that the process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
Changes such as the emergence of new color phenotypes, which are then challenged to survive and reproduce.
This is basically a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
As such the Peppered Moths are an example of selection based on differences in phenotypes. This of course annihilates your thesis -- as do several other examples posted on this thread -- and it seems your only response is to lie and misrepresent reality.
Evolutionists are so desperate for proofs and all they have is color change, and inbreeding after all these years. They are pathetic to say the least.... and desperate as ever.
Stop lying Davidjay. You have lost this debate too, failing to debunk the "Evolutionary God of 'Selection' " or even make a half-hearted attempt at it.
What is pathetic is someone who loses a debate and cannot admit it nor learn anything from it.
Perhaps it is time to put this thread in summary mode, seeing as you fail to defend your thesis and have nothing to add to it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Davidjay, posted 06-01-2017 9:30 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 323 (811105)
06-05-2017 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by CRR
06-05-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
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. ...
Indeed, and the normal white variety is called Biston betularia typica
While the black variety is called Biston betularia carbonaria
They are both members of the species Biston betularia, and they are members of the Biston genus
The names show the classification as genus name, species name, variety name
Davidjay appears to have trouble distinguishing between species and varieties.
... 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.
Indeed, as discussed on the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection thread they do alight occasionally on trunks and branches:
quote:
In his 34 years of moth hunting, Majerus has discovered 47 peppered moths at rest by day in the wild. ... Majerus separates into categories the position on trees where the moths were located (trunk, trunk/branch joint, branches). While the trunk/branch joint was the most common site, his data indicate that the moths do not all rest in the same place. ...
But that is among the ones he found, which was not many.
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.
Curiously I am always amused at how adamant creationists are at pointing out this is not an example speciation when it was never intended to be, it is just an example of natural selection (which even the ICR article points out), as noted in the thread (although they are wrong about no new genes):
quote:
... All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. ...
Evolution requires mutation and selection, so we only have part of the picture here. Recent lab analysis has discovered the mutation that causes the dark version, and that gives us the other part of the picture: this is evolution ... a gene allele is altered, causing variation within the species population, but not speciation. Again, the ICR article noted this as well: "All the while, the two types were interfertile."
As I noted in the thread this example tests natural selection but not speciation:
natural selectionspeciation
theory testedyesno
theory validatedyesno
theory invalidatednono
Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to validate or invalidate speciation.
... The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, ...
Speciation does not occur in situations where there is gene sharing between varieties, so claiming it could is rather a strawman.
... let alone a non-moth.
Which is a concept that only creationists seem to argue about: the "hopeful monster" that is suddenly not a member of the "varied-antennae" (Heterocera) supergroup, perhaps not even a member of the Order Lepidoptera, ... and completely bypassing a new genus from Bistula or a new family from Geometridae ...
Misunderstanding evolution leads to silly arguments like this.
As this thread is about selection, the Peppered Moth more than adequately destroys the thread thesis that selection does not occur -- this is even accepted widely within the creationist ranks. Continuing to argue that selection does not occur flies in the face of the facts and is delusional.
We can leave the issue of speciation to another thread, such as our current discussion on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 262 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:03 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 323 (811112)
06-05-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:03 AM


semantic twaddle
No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.
Where you say creationists accept that selection occurs and then say it is dead? fascinating.
Before you start equivocating let me remind you that the OP states:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
The thread is about selection. Selection IS non-random, virtually by definition. The process of evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Unless ALL offspring survive to reproduce, selection occurs, and you can see it every time you see a dead animal. Every time a predator catches prey natural selection occurs. Every time a herbivore eats plants natural selection occurs.
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.
Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis
Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.
Natural selection is alive and well and living with a species near you.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 270 of 323 (811365)
06-07-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM


Re: semantic twaddle
Welcome to the fray Vlad
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement — and a few more.
Please do, it should prove interesting.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM Vlad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Vlad, posted 06-08-2017 9:14 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 271 of 323 (811366)
06-07-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Taq
06-07-2017 12:31 PM


Facing reality is difficult for some
Why do deny that predation by birds caused the changes in moth color in these populations?
Because he wants to get your goat? Or he just can't face reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:31 PM Taq has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 323 (811441)
06-08-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by CRR
06-08-2017 3:20 AM


rate of change
Taq writes:
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth.
Similarly;
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.
I think we are confusing something here, and that is the rate at which populations change.
This started in Message 256 with this comment of yours:
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.
Which implies that you are saying a moth will never give birth to a "new type of moth, let alone a non-moth" ... and this is because we are talking about selection over one or two generations between varieties of a particular moth.
This is not what evolution says will happen, but it is a common creationist misconception.
Evolution says that members of a breeding population will always breed with other members of a breeding population and that they will produce the next generation within that breeding population.
A fish population evolving into an amphibian population takes (took) many generations
A amphibian population evolving into a reptile population takes (took) many generations
A reptile population evolving into a mammal population takes (took) many generations
In each generation the breeding population is (was) one common species within their ecology, but the traits of those populations change over time, as seen in Pelycodus and Foraminifera and other examples, gradually modifying the whole population. The more modification you want to see the longer it takes.
At no point do we expect offspring of the breeding population to be entirely different from the breeding population.
ALL we are expecting in this thread about selection is a change in frequency of hereditary traits from one generation to the next. Traits that exist in the breeding population.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 284 by CRR, posted 06-08-2017 6:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 282 of 323 (811475)
06-08-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Vlad
06-08-2017 9:14 AM


Re: Biston betularia
Well, I’ll try and conscientiously lay my few theses bare. ...
Good, always good to state your position.
... Yet, primarily I am to comment on the notorious Biston betularia subject. Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles. In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. ...
Actually the thread is about selection, and Biston betularia is just one of many examples of selection. The difference between light and dark is a mutation that caused the dark variety Biston betularia carbonaria to diverge from the light Biston betularia typica variety.
... At that, it remained the same Biston betularia ...
The varieties interbreed so they remain one species, but now with two alleles, one for dark as well as one for light forms. Selection changes the proportion of dark and white varieties in two different ecologies, one with soot and one without. This allowed the species to survive through the sooty period, which may not have happened otherwise.
The change in proportions is documented and it shows statistically significant selection occurring on the light variety in the sooty ecology, decreasing their numbers compared to the dark variety, and it shows statistically significant selection occurring on the dark variety in the normal ecology, decreasing their numbers compared to the white variety.
... the crucial question of evolution is: how did Biston betularia originated?
Ah, no, not for this thread -- it is about selection.
A river adapts to the terrain, ...
A river is not a living breeding population.
... a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what? ...
Again not a living breeding population.
Non-sequiturs are not evidence regarding evolution or any of it's processes.
... The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, ...
Indeed, as we see with the change to dark and return to light proportions in the Biston betularia population.
... and therefore they represent no evolution at all. ...
Wrong. It represents selection, and that is all that it is intended to represent. Complaining about it not representing speciation or macroevolution or some other processes of evolution is irrelevant.
... Says one evolutionary theorist: ...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved? (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks And the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2013).
Ah, so you are using an opening discussion on the definition of evolution to misrepresent his position here regarding selection ...
It's called quote mining. A typically evil kind of creationist lie. It seems you entirely missed the points he was making about evolution as descent with modification ... and not about evolution with back and forth selection.
Creationists seem to read for "gotcha" quote mines, while normal people read for comprehension and understanding.
Your implication by quote-mine, is that we never get anywhere, and this is where you go wrong. Dawkins likened evolution to a drunken walk, staggering back and forth but proceeding in the long run to move down the road.
As distinct from microevolution (which is so micro- that is no evolution at all), ...
Another assertion without support, while the one about "Darwinian NS" is left dangling without any further presentation of your argument
... the processes of speciation are irreversible. ...
Not quite true. There are many instances where budding daughter populations meld back into the general population, and there are instances where they interbreed and form hybrids with the benefits of both daughter population's adaptations.
In other words, evolution begins with speciation, in the world of sex. ...
Macroevolution begins with speciation in both sexual species and asexual species. This is the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations, but the actual divergence from the common ancestor population in the daughter populations occurs by microevolution generation after generation (anagenesis).
... Incidentally, the fundamental work ...
There's a fundamental work? Who knew. Are we supposed to pray to it every night and cut off the heads of unbelievers? That seems to be the general behavior of every group that professes to have a fundamental work ...
... is titled On the Origin of Species...
Actually the full title is "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"
... and not On the Adaptation of Populations...
And it doesn't need to be in the title to be in the book. This is a rather amusing argument that is really to no avail -- evolution today is more that what we began with in the 1860's with Darwin and Wallace (and others). Science builds on science and expands knowledge with new discoveries -- and that is why there is no "fundamental work" ...
... And if microevolution were true evolution, ...
Curiously ALL evolution is microevolution, it all occurs within breeding populations, accumulating changes over generations. Your failure to recognize this is not my problem -- blame your education (or lack of it).
... then tide and ebb would be evolution as well.
And Again, not a breeding population.
All you demonstrate with such comments is a profound lack of understanding of evolution, arguing against silly straw men fallacies.
The message you are replying to here is:
Message 270: Welcome to the fray Vlad
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement — and a few more.
Please do, it should prove interesting.
Enjoy
Curiously I see nothing in this post that backs up your claim that "Darwinian NS is ... just random process."
Actually I am not surprised in the slightest that you failed to attempt to substantiate your claim before making other equally ridiculous claims.
You've done the typical creationist ramble instead, trying to divert attention away from your failure by bring up other things that are off topic or ridiculous.
So ...can you substantiate your impetuous claim that "Darwinian NS is ... just random process" ... or can we agree that you don't know what you are talking about?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 287 of 323 (811540)
06-09-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:25 PM


Re: rate of change
A fish population evolving into an amphibian population takes (took) many generations
A amphibian population evolving into a reptile population takes (took) many generations
A reptile population evolving into a mammal population takes (took) many generations
Correct. That is what evolution says.
So over time the descendant of fish can become a non-fish, and the descendant of a moth a non-moth.
Just not in the time-frame of the peppered moth study.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 323 (811541)
06-09-2017 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by CRR
06-08-2017 6:30 PM


your inner fish
And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?
You might want to watch this excellent series
http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/
but I'm wondering what your point is, going further back in time. We've had 3+ billion years to evolve life on earth -- that's a LOT of generations.
and if you dispute that age you can return to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and struggle past the oak data...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 291 of 323 (811562)
06-09-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Vlad
06-09-2017 8:16 AM


Re: Random NS and more BS
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; so what has evolved? Says one evolutionary philosopher: Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] Contrariwise, irreversibility, unidirectionality means that successive accumulation of changes takes place — the necessary feature of Darwinian evolution.
So now you are quote mining statements about the stasis part of punctuated evolution.
See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution:
quote:
Stasis
From (an abundance of) this kind of evidence one can conclude that sexual selection involves actively (whether consciously or not) choosing mates that best represent {the species icon} based on visual, olfactory and behavioral clues, where {the species icon} represents the "ideal mate" not just for the individual but for the population.
If we assume {the species icon} represents average values of features within the population, then in the absence of survival selection pressure within a species population, this active choice mechanism will lead to choosing the more "average" individuals for mates (and excluding the least normal individuals) whenever possible, a process that will essentially guarantee stasis within the species population.
This is observed in many species, and in humans there are several theories on the issue of "beauty" but one of the consistent factors involved is that the more beautiful faces are averaged (see average face-ness: click) -- more on this in humans later.
Of course these individuals would also be healthy and well fit to the ecological niche they occupy, but the reason they are allowed to reproduce is because they are chosen as sexually suitable mates.
With no selection pressure and no ecological change, the population becomes optimized for the ecology and selection occurs to maintain that optimum condition.
Evolution still occurs (mutation and selection) but the selection is to remain on the mountain top and not descend into the valley.
But this emphasis of yours ignores the punctuation of that equilibrium stasis, when new species arise that are better fit for a wider ecology, evolving outside the area dominated by the parent population, and they move in and slowly replace (or merge with) existing species.
Examples of this are shown in Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium:
quote:
One of the problems that creationists seem to have with evolution is how new species can disburse and displace existing species. This is especially true for the punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") model of Gould and Eldridge. This article is to discuss the dispersal aspects of small populations into a new environment, removing the issue of new species evolution from the discussion.
Bird species introduced into North America, both intentionally and accidentally, have shown different levels of dispersal across the continent. In some cases we know that they had only small initial populations located in one place, the point of release. We also know that they were not here before being introduced. Thus such species are good models for new species dispersal behavior into a new environment.
(1) European House Sparrow
(2) European Starling
(3) English Skylark
(4) Crested Myna
(5) Chukar
(6) Budgerigar
(7) Rose-ringed Parakeets
Conclusions
Thus we see two extremely successful dispersions and others of limited success and finally some that succeeded only to lose out to later competition. Obviously not all introductions are successful, and just as obviously not all newly evolved species will win out in similar circumstances.
Native species are being impacted by the "successful" introductions (Starlings and House Sparrows) but they are still viable at this time (probably most impacted is the Eastern Bluebird). There was no eco-niche vacuum for the newcomers to fill and there was competition, but they have been able to disperse across the continent.
Any one of these would have appeared "suddenly" and "without any transitions" in the fossil record.
(Once a new species has evolved it could disperse in much the same way, and if they evolved in isolation in a small area or an area that didn't make fossils then there would be no record of any transitions).
Ignoring the punk part of punk-eek to make a false claim with the stassis part is quote mining again, and it is lying by omission.
Of course, anyone is free to pile up reversible and irreversible processes under the same notion of evolution. Well, everybody chooses for himself. ...
Only creationists cherry-pick information (as you have done and are doing), while scientists look at ALL the data.
Your failure to use ALL the data means that your "explanation" is half vast and of little real value.
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. A shame.
Actually science has moved beyond the "Modern Synthesis" ... creationists do like to stay in the dark ages.
You list microevolution but not the other leg of your absurd claim.
There is no distinction between the microevolution and evolution, and the Theory of Evolution can be stated as:
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Where both anagenesis and cladogenesis occur via microevolution over several generations.
Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]
Which is still no argument that natural selection does not occur -- that was your claim ...
Natural selection operates in the present, and it is only concerned with the present populations in their present ecology. Needing a plan, vision or foresight is a common misconception of creationists.
Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: ...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]
Curiously all you show is an example of selection working, not a lack of it. AND it is still no argument that natural selection does not occur -- that was your claim ...
We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).
More paragraph breaks would improve your posts readability.
So far a lot of blather and bluster but no real evidence of your claim.
btw -- can you explain what you mean by "Darwinian NS" versus the way "Natural Selection" is used by actual scientists?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 06-09-2017 9:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 297 of 323 (811724)
06-11-2017 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Vlad
06-10-2017 8:18 AM


MORE "Darwinian NonSense" and MORE BS
I am afraid RAZD (see post 291) is going to throw a tantrum
Ah yes, the old attack the messenger approach of a losing argument, the bottom of the barrel when you have no argument to present that counters what was posted refuting your latest claims. Next up more BS. Likely based on more quote mining and misrepresentation.
Incidentally, Darwinist Douglas Futuyma identifies Darwinian NS as a selection among individuals. [Evolution, 2005, p. 406] Anybody objects?
What's a Darwinist?
What's Darwinian NS compared to plain ordinary vanilla NS?
It is a typical ploy of creationists to confuse terminology and pretend it has a different definition than how it is used in science.
Can you cite Douglas Futuyma saying he is a "Darwinist" and that there is "Darwinian NS" that differs from other NS?
Can you answer any question put to you without dodging into another rambling non-answer?
And let me recall that Darwinian NS is non-existent ...
Given that there evidently is no scientific definition of "Darwinian NS" (you have failed to present one) this would seem to be an empty straw man argument.
... in the world of sexual reproduction (to be duly substantiated).
Curiously promises are useless when you could take the same time you took on this post to actually do it.
Yet, in the world of asexual prokaryotes, Darwinian NS happily operates ...
And again this statement is useless word salad until you define what you mean by "Darwinian NS" ... and show that your definition is actually used -- or useful -- in science as something of significant difference from plain vanilla Natural Selection.
... operates, and under its pressure the type 2s bacteria are finally exterminated. Please, notice, that selection among individuals, in the world of asexual reproduction, operates alongside with that selection among clones. Simple and nice.
and how is this different from plain vanilla "Natural Selection" as used in science with no "Darwinian" qualifier? It seems you are making a distinction without a difference.
Then suppose that later the professor Orr’s bio-community is invaded by severe viral infection, and type 1s bacteria are wholly exterminated. At that, the type 2s bacteria were highly resistant to this very virus, and surely would live through the infection. Alas, the short-sighted NS already has eliminated the type, operating here and now.
Yep, evolution, including mutation and selection, does not "plan" ... and that does lead to extinction when there are no survivors. Has any scientist in evolution or ecology said otherwise?
Besides, professor Orr doesn’t notice that Darwinian NS, in his exercise, only erases genetic information — quite valuable, at times. At that, selection creates no new genetic information. A shame.
Curiously no scientist has ever claimed that selection creates new genetic "information" (another term you now need to define in order to use it in a science forum argument ... it seems you keep piling up non-sense non-scientific pseudo jargon to hide a lack of argument or understanding).
You really are stellar at only presenting one side of a scientific process and then pretend it is the whole thing.
Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Variation created by mutation, deleterious variations eliminated by selection, rinse, repeat.
Ignoring the other half of the picture does not make it go away, it just makes you seem ignorant about it.
The above exercise is duly generalized in the theory of optimal control. ...
GIGO pretending to be communication.
... Once a process, first, develops within ever changing environment, second, is irreversible, and decisions, third, are taken myopically, then the process would inevitably advance chaotically and ramble randomly. The prose of cybernetics. ...
Saying it doesn't make it so, you need to provide actual evidence of this happening, not just conjure speculation that it happens.
And, last time I checked "cybernetics" did not involve reproducing populations of biological organisms. You seem to have a lot of difficulty recognizing the difference of biological systems to non-biological systems.
Darwinian NS qualifies for all the conditions mentioned, and therefore it operates quite randomly — in the long range.
Ah, so that's your definition of "Darwinian NS" ... defined to be something that happens in cybernetic systems, not biological systems, and thus does not refer to what happens with the actual scientific biological natural selection.
Good to know.
But that also means you failed to defend your thesis that actual scientific biological natural selection is random.
So far you have made 4 posts on this thread saying nothing of value. Let's recap:
Message 264: Being a dedicated evolutionist, ...
Lie #1 -- you don't know what evolution is or how it operates.
... Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. ...
Lie #2 -- there is no such thing as "Darwinian NS" in evolution science. If you want to say I am wrong then provide a definition for it.
... I am ready to confirm this statement ...
Lie #3 -- you have done nothing to confirm your statement, all you have done is make assertions, not provide objective empirical evidence to substantiate your statement.
Message 276: ... Biston betularia subject. Of course, the peppered moth case clearly reveals the operation of natural selection among gene alleles. In the process of microevolution, the moth got darker, then later it got lighter. ...
A description that demonstrates ignorance or misunderstanding of the evolutionary processes involved (see Lie #1 above).
A river adapts to the terrain, a fluid conforms to the shape of the containing vessel, so what? The thing is that the processes are quite reversible, and therefore they represent no evolution at all. ...
Further demonstration that you don't understand biological evolution compared to physical changes.
... Says one evolutionary theorist: ...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved? (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks And the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2013).
Lie #4 -- the lie of omission of context in an opening discussion of the definition of evolution.
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. Incidentally, the fundamental work is titled On the Origin of Species... and not On the Adaptation of Populations... And if microevolution were true evolution, then tide and ebb would be evolution as well.
Further demonstration of a lack of understanding. Creationists can't help demonstrating their ignorance of how evolution actually works ... because they are ignorant of how it works.
Message 289: 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; so what has evolved? Says one evolutionary philosopher: Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. [Kim Sterelny. Dawkins vs. Gould, 2001, p. 96] ...
Lie #5 -- another lie of omission of context in a discussion of punctuated equilibrium, omitting the periods of change.
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. A shame.
Now on the RAZD’s statement. Firstly, let me recall that natural selection is utterly short-sighted process. It does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. [Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 5]
Then consider the artless exercise submitted by professor H. Allen Orr in terms of asexual prokaryotes. Darwinian NS happily operates here: ...Imagine a population of bacteria made up of two genetic types that are initially present in equal numbers. ... Now suppose the environment ... changes: antibiotic is introduced to which type 1s are resistant but to which type 2s are not. In the new environment, type 1s are fitter - that is, better adapted - than type 2s: they survive and so reproduce more often than type 2s do. The result is that type 1s produce more offspring than type 2s do. [Testing Natural Selection with Genetics. Scientific American, January 2009]
We can expect that type 1s eventually would crowd the type 2s out - in full accordance with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. (Sorry for too many letters. To be continued in the next post).
Further demonstration of ignorance and (willful?) misunderstanding.
You may think you have said something significant. You haven't. It's garbage pseudo-intellectual crap.
Notice also that you have posted no replies to the critiques of your posts, but just ramble on. Notice that you have not substantiated a single claim you have made or defined terms you use in spite of requests for you to do so.
This is not debate, an honest debate, it is preaching, and preaching ignorant nonsense full of misunderstanding, lies and deceit.
Why should I throw a tantrum when you make a fool of yourself?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Vlad, posted 06-10-2017 8:18 AM Vlad has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 309 of 323 (812053)
06-14-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Stile
06-14-2017 11:19 AM


Re: Eyes issue and the Jellyfish Neural Net
What's strange about the jellyfish having good eyes and no brain?
You seem to say that this is weird because they can't process images like humans can.
What they have is a neural net:
quote:
A nerve net consists of interconnected neurons lacking a brain or any form of cephalization. While organisms with bilateral body symmetry are normally associated with a central nervous system, organisms with radial symmetry are associated with nerve nets. Nerve nets can be found in members of the Cnidaria, Ctenophora, and Echinodermata phyla, all of which are found in marine environments. Nerve nets can provide animals with the ability to sense objects through the use of the sensory neurons within the nerve net.
So this neural net is similar to a primitive brain in function, probably more developed than a flatworm brain ... after all what is a brain but a bunch of nerves networked in one organ?
Your "problem" seems more like a issue with the fact that jellyfish aren't human.
That's not really a problem for anyone else. For everyone else, we know jellyfish aren't humans... they're jellyfish.
No, his "problem" is that he thinks he knows what evolution is.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 11:19 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 314 of 323 (812619)
06-18-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Vlad
06-18-2017 8:23 AM


Debunking attempted ... but not really done.
... In other words, the Deep Thought program performs just like Darwinian NS that does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. ...
Is this your definition of "Darwinian NS" -- that it does not plan for the future has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all ... ?
How is this different from plain vanilla standard Natural Selection as used by actual biological, ecological, environmental and evolutionary scientists?
Natural selection is not a planning process, but it is a non-random reaction feed-back process: this works here and now, the better adapted organisms survive and reproduce to repeat it in the next generation (non-random feed-back).
It "plans" for the present. That doesn't make it random, rather it makes it guided by the existing ecological constraints to improve adaptation.
... Then imagine a chimpanzee placed in the pilot’s seat of an airliner: does the ape guide the flight? Sure it does - in a sense This is just the way NS guides biological evolution. And no wonder, the process is now and again interrupted with mass extinctions.
Or even spotted with scattered instances of individual species\population extinctions.
Indeed, there is no magic flight plan in evolution, as there is no pilot at all, chimp or otherwise. That, however, does not make it a random process. It is a non-random reaction to the existing ecology using the tools (mutations, existing adaptations) currently available in the population. Again, it is a reaction feed-back process: this works here and now, the better adapted organisms survive and reproduce to repeat it in the next generation (non-random feed-back).
Amusingly, as distinct from Darwinian NS, natural selection among gene alleles is ...
... just the same. It too is a reaction feed-back process: this works here and now, the organisms survive and reproduce to repeat it (feed-back). Those gene alleles in the surviving reproducing individuals get carried along to the next generation.
... selection among gene alleles is not so random because NS among alleles is quite reversible process. ...
Curiously, reversibility is irrelevant to evolution.
Rather than show "Darwinian NS" is random by this argument, you actually demonstrate how non-random it is. The times the gene frequencies are reversed are when the ecological constraints reverse (as occurred with the Peppered Moth), ... and it is by the selection of the phenotype not the genotype that the allele frequencies are reversed. In other words it is reversed by your "Darwinian NS" not by some "magic plan" that the gene alleles possess.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Vlad, posted 06-18-2017 8:23 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