|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| WookieeB | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member  Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Where did you show that this improvement appeared in any of the ancestors of the Nautilus?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member  Posts: 6616 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Dawkins actually said 'obvious' not 'simple'. I can't see [sic] how aquiring a lens is 'simple' but I can see that it would be obviously useful. But the 'obvious' point is that evolution doesn't care what's obvious, or even what's a necessity. All this anthropomorphical talk is confusing you - evolution deals with things that are good enough, Nautilus's eye is good enough to survive - by demonstration, had it not been, it would not be on our species list. Evolution happens by a random process of mutation followed by a selection. Who knows how many, or if any, times a lens popped up in Nautilus's long ancestry - it needn't happen at all, and the anti-evolutionists say that it can't happen, - or it could have happened but there was no selection pressure for it, or animals carrying the trait just didn't survive. The point is that evolution is not a certainty; in life's lottery there's no guarantee at all that any organisms will evolve anything, let alone the same things as other organisms. Its not possible for an organism to steal an organ from another - that's what a designer/creator would do, not what evolution can do. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of species not just one. And that's real evidence for evolution and real evidence against creation. Thanks for the example. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member  Posts: 16136 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.1
|
Are you prepared to respond to any of the criticism of your posts?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vlad Junior Member (Idle past 473 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
These are the words of great Horatio, in the other great poet’s recital. Verstehen Sie? As is known, species reside in a state of stasis (see Nautilus pompilius), and so biological evolution actually begins with speciation, in the world of sex. While as for the microevolution and NS, I am going to present you an absolutely anecdotal case. Look and see. After all, what is natural selection? Classic Ernst Mayr once has proposed a nice and neat notion: “...Natural selection is simply the elimination of the less fit and of the less fortunate”. (The Resistance to Darwinism And the Misconceptions on Which It Was Based. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 39). Then a naive question suggests itself: what in particular is more or less fit here?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JonF Member Posts: 4467 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stile Member  Posts: 3368 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.2
|
Whatever survives.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Species also reside in a state of change (see hominids):
The more fit are the ones with more grandchildren and the less fit are those with fewer grandchildren.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vlad Junior Member (Idle past 473 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
(Besides, Taq contributes the expressive image: do the hominid skulls belong to one and the same species? Or do they belong to different species which resided each in a state of stasis?) The thing is that biological evolution is all about reproduction. So entities, which are unable to reproduce, represent no evolutionary players. And according to the mainstream textbooks, biological fitness is measured by reproductive (procreative) success while viability is just a necessary condition of successful reproduction. For instance, “...In evolutionary biology, having more viable fertile offspring is fitter than having fewer. Reproductive success is the heart of the evolutionary concept.” [Elliott Sober. Progress and Direction in Evolution. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 24] Well, the theory of microevolution in whole is built upon the idea of individual fitness: individual organisms are more or less fit, and so natural selection… As for the world of asexual prokaryotes, this idea looks quite plausible. Indeed, a bacterium begets more or less numerous descendants, and therefore, is considered more or less fit. Clear and neat.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
(1)
