|
Author
|
Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Welcome
Hi herebedragons, welcome to EvC! 
herebedragons writes: Iblis - very poor post. hopefully an admin will take note of it and delete it. I hope this isn't the kind of dialog that will continue in this forum as no one benefits from this type of derogatory slamming.
Posts are never deleted here, perhaps hidden, but the content is always preserved. If you have a problem with a certain post or poster, you can raise your concerns here: Report discussion problems here: No.2. Moderators will look at it and perhaps warn or suspend the poster, if they are so inclined.
What are the limitations to what natural selection can accomplish?
I guess they're limited to what chemistry and physics will allow. Not sure about those limits are though.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by herebedragons, posted 11-22-2009 11:55 PM | | herebedragons has seen this message but not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Bolder-dash writes: So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?
Because he probably thought you weren't so ignorant as to think something arises only by natural selection. It's like asking how just cold can form ice. It can't, it also requires water.
He used the word mutation because there is no other way to talk about the evolutionary process of change without it. This is a discussion about things evolving after-all, hence the words evolutionary change in my OP..get it!
Yet you only wanted to talk about natural selection. When examples of natural selection are shown to you, you move the goalposts and start talking about mutations.
The argument is about natural selection's effect on the evolutionary process-and that deals DIRECTLY with mutations
No it doesn't, for it is completely irrelevant how the changes to the DNA happen, as long as they happen, natural selection will act upon them. Whether god poofing them into the DNA, or by random mutations, natural selection will work regardless.
To use his lame attempt at analogies, its like talking about a car, but not being able to talk about its engine.
And that's a wrong analogy, since you aren't talking about a car (The Theory of evolution) but only the steering wheel (natural selection).
So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining.
Because natural selection doesn't work with mutations, mutations just happen to be the way the changes in DNA happen. Natural selection will still wortk the same even if god poofs those changes into the DNA.
What are you so afraid of discussing.
Nothing. It is you who moved the goalposts when it was explained to you how natural selection is indeed tried and tested, not only in the lab, but in the wild as well.
I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!
But we're not discussing the theory of evolution here, we're discussing natural selection. Edited by Huntard, : quoted a bit wrong
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Natural Selection?
Then why did you title the thread "Has natural selection really been tested and verified?". When you didn't want to talk about just natural selection, but rather the entire evolutionary process, which is more than just natural selection? Why not title it "Has evolution really been tested and verified?" or "Has evolutionary change really been tested and verified?". If that is really what you wanted to talk about? Of course you'll mention evolutionary change when talking about natural selection, because that is the effect selection has.
Bolder-dash writes: because when I mentioned the phrase evolutionary change in that first post, none of you was aware that I was talking about evolutionary change as it relates to natural selection.
Of courtse we were. Since it is related. However, you wanted to talk solely about natural selection, not about the entire evolutionary process. Or if you didn't, then why title your thread as you have done?
If I wanted to discuss evolutionary change, and not just natural selection, I should have mentioned evolutionary change in the opening paragraph of the first posting (right after I mentioned evolutionary change for the third time perhaps).
No, you should've titled your thread differently, so as to not put people off and safe some time that has now effectively been wasted because you weren't clear in your thread. So, you actually want to talk about the entire evolutionary proces. Ok, shoot away, what do you want to discuss?
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:08 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Bolder-dash writes: Now, since many of you don't believe this topic has anything to do with mutations...
Natural selection doesn't have anything to do with mutations, no.
am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE?
By acting on the changes in the DNA.
Please elaborate.
Elaborate? It really is that simple.
I challenge you to do so without talking about mutations.
I just did. How the changes arise is irrelevant.
Seeing as how natural selection and genetic drift create no new information at all, and on their own say absolutely nothing other than some organisms die before they can reproduce.
So, that still doesn't mean natural selection has anything whatsoever to do wit mutations. Sure, we know the changes arise because of mutations, but that doesn't matter. They could've arisen any which way you like, natural selection would still act upon them.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:16 AM | | Bolder-dash has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Bolder-dash writes: First, let's say organisms never mutated, and reproduced exactly the same way each time-could natural selection work then?
Yes. It would most probably lead to extinction of everything, but that's also natural selection at work.
Let's say that every individual in a population mutated into a rock that neither consumed nor moved, and they all spawned more rocks at the same rate of one per century- would natural selection still work?
Mutate...into...a...rock....yeah.... Uhm, I'm not sure if you know how biology works, but that's completely impossible.
Or what if Lamark was right, then natural selection could certainly not apply.
Of course it could. It's just that it would act upon the traits aquired by the indiviidual.
What if every mutation that ever occurred was a negative one. Could natural selection still work then?
Yes, and again, it would probably lead to extinction.
What if mutation rates were absolutely constant, so that in every third generation (say your great grandfather as a good example) an anencephalic dwarf was produced? Do you think natural selection would work?
Yes. Probably extinction again.
The moral of this story is, you are not right just because you say you are.
indeed....
And BTW, I will use whatever dam title I want, next time read the entire post instead of just the title.
It helps to stop the confusion though. Now look what happened, everybody started talking about natural selection, yet you didn't want to talk about that.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 12:31 PM | | Bolder-dash has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Bolder-dash writes: Well, its an interesting point you are trying to argue. I don't know what it is proving other than any tests proclaiming the validity of natural selection do nothing to support the theory of evolution as a whole.
Of course it doesn't, since the theory of efvolution is more than just natural selection.
I can see no conflict between your position and those of the new earth creationists.
So, they except the fact that natural selection plays a vital role in explaining the diversity of life we see on the planet?
think you would have been a valuable asset for the defense in the Dover school board trial.
Really? How so? Since I wouldn't be so sure of that, since I'm basically on the plaintiffs side of things. But thanks for the compliment, I guess.
So disregarding the fact that you are showing that they prove nothing, counting up now, through 85 posts it looks like we have four, ok say five tests that anyone can point to in support of Darwin's theories.
No, in support of natural selection working. It is only now that it has become clear that you actually wanted to talk about the entire evolutionary theory that we can begin to provide actual examples of the whole theory. Oh, and 85 posts isn't a whole lot either, certainly not when there was apparent confusing form the beginning about what the topic actually was about.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 1:58 PM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
There you go again
Bolder-dash writes: anyone who is intellectually honest knows that that is a vital ingredient of natural selection-without it natural selection does not exist, because change in the organism doesn't exist.
How many times do we need to tell you this? Where the change comes from is irrelevant. Mutations have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection. They just happen to be the way we know changes occur in DNA, but it doesn't matter what causes those changes, it doesn't even matter if there are no changes at all, natural selection will still work. Get this basic stuff right before you go telling people of for "crying" about you going off-topic in your own thread.
The problem is you and others aren't really interested in honest debate about the subject of evolution.
Really? Who's the one who started moving goalposts again?
I never begin insulting anyone I am having a thoughtful discussion with, yet there have been at least 8 different people here insulting me because I challenged something they don't want me to challenge.
First, we're not insulting you, and second, you haven't challenged anything.
Well, don't worry, I can take it. but don't expect me to then accept your crap as meaningful.
So, when someone is not nice to another person, you can dismiss whatever he says outright? Good cause when you wrote:
Secondly, you along with practically every other poster on this thread trying to "defend" a position have used countless volumes of paragraphs whining and complaining about having to actually consider and discuss aspects of evolution that you prefer everyone to just shut up and except. Cosmic Chimp even have the audacity to file a complaint in another folder with the moderator that I was discussing mutations when talking about natural selection (wha wha wha, oh the hardship!). You come onto a forum which debates evolution and throw your few cents out there, and then when anyone challenges aspects of your two cents, you whine and and whinge and obfuscate, and cry like a spoiled child.
You weren't being nice, so, we get to ignore everything else you say?
If you are afraid of being challenged why did you come here, to get ratings brownie points from the other evolutionist brown shirts?
Who cares about ratings here? Plus, they were only recently introduced, and most don't like them anyway. I was here long before the ratings got implemented, and so were many others.
I guess I was pretty prescient about the exact tactics most of the people here would use,
Not really, because asking about us mutating into rocks really shows you apparently don't know how evolution works.
I am convinced there must be some good minds on this forum, but they are lost in the crowd of other loud mouths who just want to brag about how right they are without contributing anything of value at all.
Did I not contribute anything valuable? You even complimented me in a weird way.
Got it. Seems you don't have much else to add.
Why should he need to add more?
Perhaps you will be around for my next thread entitled: "Has natural selection (and the vital mutations which are the essential ingredient of natural selection, of course) been tested and verified?"
For the umpteenth time, mutations are not necessary for natural selection. It should be interesting to see what whinging complaints you can come up with then.
Not nice again, everything you say is therefore irrelevant.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 97 of 302 (536992)
11-26-2009 8:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:46 AM
|
|
Re: Still
Peg writes: But I thought that modern evolutionists taught that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection would choose the ones whose gene mutations made them most fit for their environment and eventually they developed into new species.
Yes, we know the changes in DNA are because of mutations, but that is irrelevant to the working of natural selection.
You seem to be saying that Mutations are not required to form new species, is that correct?
No, he isn't. He's saying that mutations aren't necessary for natural selection to start acting on something.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:46 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes: I actually was talking about Huntard there not you, so my apologies there.
Wow. Thanks.
Please give a definition of the ToE, and also hopefully a definition of natural selection.
Sure. ToE: The explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. NS: Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes: So this statement can be correct-God is the ToE? Or Aliens are the ToE? Or Lamarckism is the ToE?
If you have evidence to show it to be the case, then yes, aliens, or god, or whatever else you want could be the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. However, no such evidence exists. See Parsamonium's post for what we now from the facts about how evolution happens. These are the elements currently contained within the theory.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes: But you have already stated that the definition of the ToE simply says any explanation for how the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens
Yes.
The ToE by definition (according to you) puts no constraints on what that explanation may be.
Wrong. The theory of evolution talks only about the things Parsamonium mentioned. That doesn't change the fact that the definition of the ToE is the current explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. This doesn't mean that any other explanation for how this change happens is equal to the ToE. It's a classic case of (All A = B but not all B = A).
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes: No, according to your definition, the ToE is simply the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.
It is the current explanation, yes.
Seriously, who is changing the goalposts?
No idea. You wanted the definition of ToE, I gave it to you.
There was absolutely no mention at all in your definition about what that explanation needs to be, just that it needs to be an explanation.
Because you didn't ask for what the explanation was, you ask for the definition.
If you are gong to come here and try to argue something, at least try to do so in an honest fashion.
I am. You asked for the definition, I gave it to you.
So now, do you wish to change your definition? Please go ahead-but I hope this is going to be the final change.
No. It is the current explanation for how the changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Here's mine
Bolder-dash writes: What current explanation? That God creates everything? So is that what you are saying?
No, that is not an explanation, godidit doesn't answer anything.
Let's face it, you were trying to be cute by answering in a stupid way, and now you have been called for it and you are weaseling.
I'm not weaseling. I'm standing behind my definition.
Where are you going with this, either answer the question, or stay out of the discussion.
Nowhere, I gave you what you wanted, now what?
The fact is you can't answer the question, because you are already trapped by your previous statements, so now you are just playing the role of antagonist.
But I have answered your question.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-26-2009 12:02 PM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 12:18 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 123 of 302 (537063)
11-26-2009 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
11-26-2009 12:18 PM
|
|
Re: Here's mine
Hey ICANT,
ICANT writes: Neither does "We don't know".
Indeed. But at least that's honest.
So do you have a good explanation of how it happened?
Yes, the theory of evolution is how evolution happened.
God Bless and have a Happy Thanksgiving,
Although we don't celebrate thanksgiving here, thank you, and you enjoy yours.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2009 12:18 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 144 of 302 (537113)
11-27-2009 2:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 141 by Peg
11-27-2009 12:21 AM
|
|
Re: Here's mine
Peg writes: whats the differnce between this and mutation?
Mutations are changes in DNA. NS is what is acting upon those changes, making it more ir less likely for the organism to survive. If therre were no natural selection, mutations would not be beneficiary, or detrimental.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 141 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:21 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2