Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

Bolder-dash, The Theory of Evolution is not "my" theory. I am a physicist/mathematician who specialises in relativity, cosmology, string theory and the like. However, as a scientist, I am suffciently familiar with evolutionary science to recognise how the ToE and common descent fits the available evidence sufficiently well for me to regard it as close to fact; in the same way that I regard Special Relativity as close to fact. This isn't out of any pre-conceived ideas or (anti)religious motivation. I was an evangelical Christian for many many years, and a creationist for a short while. I could not hold to creationism as the intellectual suicide it demanded was far too high a price to pay.

I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.

This leaves you with the simple choice - either you are wrong, or the entire world-wide a-religious community of scientists is deluded or involved in the world's largest conspiracy. And I should add that the vast majority of the world's religious scientists also have exactly the same opinion regarding the ToE, including many of my envangelical Christian friends. So they too would have to be in on this conspiracy...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Exactly how many posts in this thread can you read that refer to the topic? After you can answer that question, then perhaps you can tell me how worthwhile the forum is, and explain to me how its a debate, as opposed to a trial where the plaintive is also the judge, the jury , and the bailiff. Enjoy your flagellation. I think I will stick to sites that actually have a real moderator for now. Or even no moderator would be an improvement.

If this means that you're going to take your ball and go home, then goodbye.

I should still advise you to learn the meaning of the words that you're using if you ever wish to engage in any further debate on this topic.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

* sigh * We're not talking about two different species.

Has speciation occurred in Galapogos finches or not? Or has it been observed anywhere for that matter? I have info on Grenish Warblers and peppered moths and I am not convinced that either one is truely speciation.

I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution.

Simon Conway Morris...

Oops, I win. Gee that didn't take long at all.

Care to try your luck at another sport you are better equipped for? Arm wrestling?

Further debate would imply that you actually debated on this topic. I see no evidence of that.

Of course your criteria for evidence is obviously much lower than mine.

Cavediver writes: I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. Simon Conway Morris...

Christian *AND* scientist who accepts the ToE

You're just deternmined to be an epic failure here, aren't you?

Admittedly, Morris has some fanciful ideas about higher purpose seen in evolution and the Universe at large, but so do I every other Thursday...

Oh, you mean they are not allowed to have gone to church? So they have to believe that some things can't be accounted for by a materialistic account of the world and also be atheist?

You got me there. I guess no one is going to meet that challenge. You are good.

Has speciation occurred in Galapogos finches or not?

Of course --- but not during the few years that anyone has been looking, and no-one has ever claimed that it has.

Or has it been observed anywhere for that matter?

Yes. But don't just take my word for it.

For example, the CreationWiki states:

Speciation, or the formation of a new species, does occur with some regularity.

And the foremost creationist site on the internet, Answers in Genesis, states:

New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

When creationists have so far given up on denying speciation that they're now claiming it as "an important part of the creationist model", then I believe that the debate is over.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Everyone:

Please confine your discussion and comments to the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Further debate would imply that you actually debated on this topic. I see no evidence of that.

You're good at not seeing evidence for reality.

Er ... should I congratulate you?

Oh, you mean they are not allowed to have gone to church?

Yet, 40% of scientists in America believe in some form of theistic evolution thus believing both in God and evolution. 55% believe in naturalistic evolution with no influence by God and less than 5% believe in Creationism. (source: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists

Yeah, your argument holds water. Like a sieve.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This is an interesting thought that I hadn't seen before. Of course, evolution can go on with out any RM but (a big but) for how long in what way?

NS is selecting out specific patterns. Eventually you'd end up with a very, very restricted gene pool if no new variation is being added. All this would do is hasten the time when the final selection is made and the species goes extinct. Which is perfectly good evolution too.

Please confine your discussion and comments to the topic.

Oh, that thing.

What happened to that?

We were talking about moths and guppies and finches and actual observations of the law of natural selection actually happening, which seemed like splendid ways to test the law of natural selection, and then somehow the stupid bomb exploded.

---

P.S: My previous post was posted after your warning, but I started posting it before I'd read it, and so it was not intended to be in defiance of your fiat.

Hi Arphy, thanks for trying to arbitrate, we'll see if Bolder-dash takes it in.

Isn't "Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation." really just a definition of Natural selection? I mean, this doesn't really make make any reference to variation or mutations at all? What is the difference between your definition for evolution and your definition for 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."? It seems to say the same thing except using different words. I mean "change in frequencey" is basically natural selection. Isn't it?

The change in frequency of hereditary traits is the result of natural selection, of new mutations, of genetic drift, of random disasters, etc. When this change is observed we can say evolution has occurred.

Natural selection is one of the processes that cause evolution, and it specifically addresses survival and reproductive success of individuals - a small correction to your previous post: NS operates on individual phenotypes, the developed organism that results from their genotype and developmental process (thus including environmental factors and acquired factors in the selection process).

Certainly when NS occurs then evolution occurs, but evolution can also occur without NS.

When mutations occur, and add new hereditary traits, evolution occurs.

NS causes the change in frequency, evolution results from it being changed.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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) • • •

Hi ICANT,

I understand this to say that if you start with one species of finches with small beaks they would develop the large beaks over a period of time.

No. Evolution is a response mechanism. Change occurs in response to a change in the ecology of the species. Random mutations and genetic drift can cause some difference in the average values of a population, but it is undirected (hence "random" and "drift" terms).

It shows 14 different species of finches that have different size beaks and during wet times the small beak finches increase in number and the large beak finches decrease in number. In dry times the large beak finches increase in number and the small beak finches decrease in number.

This is natural selection: those that are better adapted to the changed ecology survive and breed better than those that are not as well adapted.

Now if that is evolution I am sold.

Natural selection is a part of evolution. One part of many.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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) • • •