Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 1:05 AM
24 online now:
Dr Adequate, Dredge, DrJones*, PaulK (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,648 Year: 3,685/19,786 Month: 680/1,087 Week: 49/221 Day: 3/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 256 of 302 (537478)
11-28-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
11-28-2009 5:50 PM


modulous
Thank you for your reply.

I believe that you and other have served to complicate the question unnecessarily. The quote was simply from a longer editors notes section. What he meant is basically irrelevant, because I was never asking what he meant, it was simply as a way of mentioning that this got me to thinking-what do we actually know about evolution and its testability. Its that simple. The ToE contains the principles (as others have stated) of RM, NS, and change over a vast amount of time. There was never any need to make the discussion more complicated than this.

the reason that I asked to exclude bacteria is also fairly simple. Scientifically claims are rife with speculations about how one trait or another came to arrive in a population.

They will claim that symmetrical men and women are best suited for their environment and have the most reproductive success

They will claim that face symmetry is more beautiful to us, because that indicates better health of the individual, and thus we would select for this over time (illogical) but this is the claim. they claim that the ideal shape of attractiveness for a woman is a certain ratio of hip size to wait size 9that can be measured quite accurately) because this size is most suitable for giving childbirth (which has been shown to also not be true, but none the less). ....In other words, NS has shaped our preferences and our attitudes, and our personalities in life, along with shaping all of the complex body parts we see.

So now science has to show, that not only can NS (by the use of RM!) make complex body parts through a RM creating some small advantage of survivial in a population, and slowly becoming selected for, and then as it becomes a more common trait in the population, a further mutation down the bloodline could be added to that mutation (if you don't agree this is the claim the ToE, ie. Dawkins and so man others, makes for how complex body parts can be formed, please provide your own idea of how the theory claims this is possible) to eventually shape this form.

Female finches, like female humans, don't directly assess the genetic fitness of a mate before mating. They don't sit there and think 'I want my kids to have a long beak, but I want better eyes too..." The finches just carry on as ever, and those that have kids with the 'wrong' sized beak find their kids not doing as well as those that have kids that have the right sized beak.

Of course I am not saying that female finches sit around making a choice, I think it is you who is not getting it. I am saying that science claims subconscious choices have lead to all kinds of traits being selected for- like the plumage colors of male birds for instance. The point I made, which I don't think should be so hard to understand is that if birds were making subconscious choices of rating their partners health based on their plummage colors, at the same time they would also be making subconscious choices about their beak size, about their nest making skills, about their length of their wingspans, and every other bird trait you want to think of, because we are claiming that all of the traits we see on earth are created by NS.

So frankly, for you or anyone else to say that its because I am not understanding the basics is frankly just bs. I am looking at the big picture, and saying, how much of this big picture does science actually know-how much can it really prove. Can we test in any way shape or form Dawkin's theoretical model of how an eye might have formed for instance (Nilsson and Pelger's attempts to show scientifically how it could have happened was laughable).

Why was it necessary to complicate the discussion? The question started out very broad, to allow it to be narrowed over time. What do we know in this modern age of science, 200 years after the birth of Darwin, that shows how his big picture can all be put together to show how all the forms of life came to be how they are today. That I mentioned NS and didn't go into more details at the very beginning about RM and genetic drift, and every other details that goes into your theory, and how it all ties together is a complete smokescreen-because many discussions start off broad by necessity because its the beginning of the topic, not ten steps down the ladder of complexity. if you need to include every smaller point that you wanted to discuss in the very opening paragraph, that would be a very very long paragraph I would suggest.

If that isn't possible to be talked abut on this site (that is, what scientifically proves NS actually works the way you claim it does), without all of your constant assertions that all us whacky creationists just don't know what we are talking about, then I don't know what is.

I will say at this point though, that originally I came here actually wanting to learn something about what science can prove nowadays, but when I see the scarcity of people who are able to follow one simple logical step to the next (like understanding that just because I prefaced a question by talking about an article in Discovery magazine-that doesn't mean you need to know what context the magazine said this. It is me asking the question now, not Discovery magazine. Its like saying, I was walking down the street and I saw an ad for milk, and I got to thinking, is milk good for our bodies-and then someone saying, well, that depends, tells us what the ad said exactly....geez.), I frankly no longer hold out a lot of hope for having conversations with many people here who can have a logical conversations without bungling the meaning of every sentence and then accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2009 5:50 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2009 11:15 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2009 1:09 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2009 10:34 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 257 of 302 (537480)
11-28-2009 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:31 PM


What science can "prove?"
I will say at this point though, that originally I came here actually wanting to learn something about what science can prove nowadays...

Then you are wrong from the very beginning.

Science is not about "proof." Or truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH.

Scientific theories are simply the best explanations we currently have for a particular dataset.

But Creationists generally reject both scientific evidence and the scientific method because they have produced evidence and theories that contradict their a priori religious beliefs.

Because they reject science and the scientific method, Creationists do not feel the need to accept the definitions used by science either. To do so would, apparently, be to accept the findings of science.

Instead they tend to avoid any real study of science, and make up the most outrageous and inappropriate definitions of scientific terms, and they feel completely free to contradict the findings of scientists who have spent 40 or more years of hard work learning their particular fields. And they feel free to contradict the results of hundreds of years of investigations by thousands of scientists.

And on what basis do they contradict those scientists? Why, religious belief! Facts and evidence--who needs them?!? Just believe and all of science will crumble before you.

On another website I witnessed a Creationist tell the world that the "second law of thermal documents" prohibited evolution. And another told us quite seriously that the odds against evolution and common descent were 1720. He couldn't understand why we laughed at him.

So you need to go back to the beginning and look up the nature of the scientific method and scientific evidence, and look up the meaning of "hypothesis," "theory," and "proof" while you're at it. Then look up "dogma" and "faith" just for comparison. Figure where you are in the midst of all of this.

And if you find that the vast majority of scientists disagree with you, perhaps what you are peddling isn't science.

And if you really think about it you might realize that what Creationists are peddling is the exact opposite of science.

But then you knew that when you came here to peddle your particular religious beliefs, didn't you?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:31 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:10 AM Coyote has responded

herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 258 of 302 (537487)
11-29-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Hahaha. Good one Dr A. Were you testing me?

You left out part of the quote from CreationWiki (I wonder why???)

Corrected quote from CreationWiki:

Speciation, or the formation of a new species, does occur with some regularity, but this process can easily be prescribed as the result of intelligent design.

And the closest quote I could find on Answers In Genesis are:

As creationists, we fully accept the fact that adaptation / natural selection can occur rapidly. In fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic factors) would have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within the animal kinds.

I have read the creationist literature, but have not used it on this forum. It would be dismissed as creationist propaganda. I am thinking for myself and asking questions about issues that bother me about the ToE. My concern with natural selection is that there are barriers to what it can accomplish. - and natural selection is the thread topic

For instance, one barrier, or boundary if you will, would be the organism must be living. Non living things cannot evolve by NS. You can’t apply NS to rocks or amino acids or proteins. That is undisputed! Correct?

What I am proposing (or maybe supposing) is that another barrier to NS is genetic incompatibility. The studies for NS that I looked at - the Galapagos finches, the Greenish warbler, the peppered moths, and the cichlids all apparently can still interbreed. Thus this “biological barrier” has not been broken. Have I misinterpreted these studies?

Before we can talk about breaking a barrier, we would need to show that one exists. NS is opportunistic: it takes the opportunities provided by mutations and matches them to the opportunities provided by ecologies to select individual phenotypes that are best suited to survive and reproduce within the ecologies.

I gave examples of several human populations that have been reproductively isolated for thousands of years and yet no new human species have developed. Why? Because they can still interbreed and produce viable offspring. So this supports the idea that a genetic “barrier” exists.

This is what Bolder-Dash is trying to accomplish in this thread:

So now science has to show, that not only can NS (by the use of RM!) make complex body parts through a RM creating some small advantage of survivial in a population, and slowly becoming selected for, and then as it becomes a more common trait in the population, a further mutation down the bloodline could be added to that mutation (if you don't agree this is the claim the ToE, ie. Dawkins and so man others, makes for how complex body parts can be formed, please provide your own idea of how the theory claims this is possible) to eventually shape this form.

But if we can’t get past the first “barrier” - by that I mean biological incompatibility - how can you possibly explain complex body parts, common descent or even how one class of organism can turn into another class.

So, no. I don’t think the debate is over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2009 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 1:19 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply
 Message 279 by xongsmith, posted 11-29-2009 12:06 PM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 259 of 302 (537488)
11-29-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Coyote
11-28-2009 11:15 PM


Re: What science can "prove?"
seriously? I never saw Bolder-dash mention his religious beliefs even once. Neither did he mention creation as a potential theory. Maybe you doubt his genuinely wanting to learn anything, but why call him a religious creationist???? Because he doubts the ToE? Ridiculous.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Coyote, posted 11-28-2009 11:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 11-29-2009 12:27 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply
 Message 267 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 2:24 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 260 of 302 (537489)
11-29-2009 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:16 PM


Re: Speciation
not much response to this, huh? except that now we know that there are 1,202,920,000 sheep in the world. not a lot of help
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:16 PM Peg has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 261 of 302 (537492)
11-29-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by herebedragons
11-29-2009 12:10 AM


Re: What science can "prove?"
seriously?

Yes.

I never saw Bolder-dash mention his religious beliefs even once. Neither did he mention creation as a potential theory.

Those who doubt the theory of evolution are not relying on science, but on religious belief. Science supports the theory of evolution.

So who is it that relies on science, and who on religious beliefs?

Maybe you doubt his genuinely wanting to learn anything, but why call him a religious creationist????

QED. Creationists are about the only folks who dispute the theory of evolution.

Because he doubts the ToE? Ridiculous.

Not ridiculous. The scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Religious belief is what engenders the attacks on evolution--those attacks have been going on for 150 years. And they have proved futile.

That seems to be the genesis of this thread--doubts (engendered by religious belief) of different parts of the theory of evolution.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:10 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 262 of 302 (537494)
11-29-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:31 PM


Re:Finches
Hi Bolder-dash

I haven't answered a post of yours until now so welcome to EvC.

BD writes:

Of course I am not saying that female finches sit around making a choice,

As I understand what I read about the finches the ladies are waiting around for a male to come along singing a song that her father sung.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:31 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 263 of 302 (537495)
11-29-2009 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Peg
11-28-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Back to Basics
one very crucial point in the golapogas finch study...one that was not promoted too loudly....was that the different “species” of finches could still breed and produce offspring that survived better than the parents.

That's not actually true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 6:26 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Peg, posted 11-29-2009 4:31 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 264 of 302 (537496)
11-29-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by herebedragons
11-29-2009 12:04 AM


Re: Back to Basics
You left out part of the quote from CreationWiki (I wonder why???)

Because I am not obliged to quote everything they've ever written when I merely wish to prove that they admit that speciation happens. The fact that they have also said many things which are stupid and false is not my concern.

And the closest quote I could find on Answers In Genesis are:

Unfortunately their server is down, so I can't help you with that right now.

I have read the creationist literature, but have not used it on this forum. It would be dismissed as creationist propaganda.

Right. But when even creationist propagandists admit speciation, doesn't that tell you something?

Thus this “biological barrier” has not been broken. Have I misinterpreted these studies?

In order to misinterpret them, you'd have to have read them.

So I suspect that you haven't misinterpreted them, but rather that someone else has misinterpreted them for you.

So this supports the idea that a genetic “barrier” exists.

Whereas the fact that giraffes and coelacanths can't interbreed suggests that it doesn't.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:04 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by xongsmith, posted 11-29-2009 12:12 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 265 of 302 (537498)
11-29-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
11-28-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Back to Basics
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

No. Evolution is a response mechanism. Change occurs in response to a change in the ecology of the species.

Could you then explain what changes are taking place in the 13 different species of Darwin's finches in response to the wet seasons and the dry seasons?

This is put forth as a test of natural selection. It has been cited as proof of natural selection.

The study proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the finches that get the most eatable food survive and reproduce better.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 11:36 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 1:32 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 266 of 302 (537499)
11-29-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
11-29-2009 1:26 AM


Re: Back to Basics
The study proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the finches that get the most eatable food survive and reproduce better.

Thank you. Are we done here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2009 1:26 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 267 of 302 (537502)
11-29-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by herebedragons
11-29-2009 12:10 AM


Re: What science can "prove?"
Maybe you doubt his genuinely wanting to learn anything, but why call him a religious creationist???? Because he doubts the ToE? Ridiculous.

This one is easy to answer. Because its in their playbook, on the very first page-under the chapter, "How to Deny, Obfuscate, and Make Ad Hominem Attacks Be Your Friend". They all know this is the first level of response to any logical inconsistencies they face. Cloud the argument by either claiming the person is a whacky creationist-(like for instance if they have ever gone to church or read a book or sang a Christmas carol), and if that doesn't work, the next response is "oh you just don't know what you are talking about." Finally, if all else fails, pull out the old -"do you have a better explanation?" If you were to delete the number of posts that use these three mindless responses, you would basically eliminate 4/5 of their conversations on this site.

I mean can anyone in the real world, who possess even the slightest modicum of honesty actually make the argument that NS in terms of evolutionary theory does not, by definition, include the presumption of Random Mutations which must be accounted for? What a clunker of an argument that is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by herebedragons, posted 11-29-2009 12:10 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 268 of 302 (537504)
11-29-2009 3:01 AM


As far as addressing cavediver's challenge to name any biological scientists who disagree with the ToE but who aren't religious, this strikes me as a very bizarre point.

The questioning would be thus when applying for a position which meets this criteria:

"Do you believe in God?" Well, I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically, in terms of reconciling the randomness of their mutations, and being able to develop and subsist life and all its complexities in this environment and so forth, so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things, so I guess the answer must be yes.

Oh, sorry, that disqualifies you from being able to analyze the ToE!

I guess the only people who could disagree with the theory of evolution, and still not hold any spiritual belief at all would be those who just decided that they really can't be bothered to think about it. What other options are left for people who disagree with the theory? Be an atheist, but disagree with it? Go figure that one.

Interestingly, Cavediver said that no one who is smart can disagree with the ToE, and yet he also states that he used to disagree with the ToE. So either he is wrong, some smart people do disagree with the ToE, or else he is right, in which case he is also not smart, so why should anyone believe he is correct?


Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2009 6:27 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 269 of 302 (537507)
11-29-2009 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2009 1:12 AM


Re: Back to Basics
DrAdequate writes:

That's not actually true.

Yes, it is true.

it was Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the galapogas finches in the 70's and they documented how the drought was the contributor to the change in beak sizes. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches and if you did a bit of digging into their research, you'd find that some of the different species of finches were capable of interbreeding and producing offspring. the article by Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs appeared in the science journal 'Natur' in 1987.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 1:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 10:21 AM Peg has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 270 of 302 (537515)
11-29-2009 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 3:01 AM


"Well, I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically... ...so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"

Oh, sorry, that disqualifies you from being able to analyze the ToE!

Yes, of course that disqualifies you - from any kind of science. If you do not think that Evolution or Natural Selection has been successfully tested and verified, if you think there are large holes in the theory, then you can and develop a new theory which explains what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages.

When it was noticed that the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian gravitation, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?

When it was found that an electric current could deflect a compass, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?

When it was found that radium could fog a photographic plate, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 3:01 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019