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 12:09 AM
25 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie, ramoss (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 271 of 302 (537520)
11-29-2009 7:12 AM


Moderator Still On Duty
Hi folks!

Modulus and Bolder-dash returned to discussion of the topic (see Message 256), but this exchange was followed by a slew of off-topic posts and complaints.

If you have something to say about the topic or that fits into on-going discussion, please post here.

Please takes complaints about discussion to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

If you want to make meta-comments about the discussion, take them to the Peanut Gallery.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 272 of 302 (537538)
11-29-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
11-29-2009 1:26 AM


moderator request re topic
ICANT

I am following moderator request to stick to the original topic.

For me, this means waiting to see if Bolder-dash defines what he is looking for before making any further response.

For Bolder-dash -- please define what you think constitutes "evolutionary change" so we know what you want. Please be as specific as possible.

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) • • •

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 9:49 AM RAZD has responded

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


Message 273 of 302 (537548)
11-29-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by RAZD
11-29-2009 8:43 AM


Re: moderator request re topic
Scientifically solid evidence, not conjecture because we have no other theory, that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 10:23 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 10:40 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 278 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 10:56 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

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


Message 274 of 302 (537551)
11-29-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Peg
11-29-2009 4:31 AM


Hybrids
I have read the Grants' papers on the finches. What I was disputing was not your claim that they hybridized but that the hybrids were fitter than the parent species. If this was so, then surely they'd have displaced them? At any rate, I can't think offhand what mechanism could prevent this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Peg, posted 11-29-2009 4:31 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Peg, posted 11-30-2009 12:28 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 275 of 302 (537552)
11-29-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 9:49 AM


Re: moderator request re topic
Scientifically solid evidence, not conjecture because we have no other theory, that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth.

I believe that you were asked for a definition of "evolutionary change". I'm fairly sure that that isn't one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 9:49 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 276 of 302 (537555)
11-29-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Bolder-dash
11-28-2009 10:31 PM


natural selection, sexual selection, common ancestry
I believe that you and other have served to complicate the question unnecessarily.

Or perhaps the question was ambiguous, and we're trying to figure out what it is exactly you were asking - that's always a possibility, right?

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.

Well, yes, evolution is testable and it has been tested. But it's a very wide topic to discuss broadly. Perhaps we can focus on one aspect and take it from there?

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.

This is a thread (and has been a thread) all of its own - How can evolution explain body symmetry?. You assert it is illogical, but you don't provide any reasons for it being illogical.

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.

Thank you at least for clarifying the subject for us. It might be easier if you pick a 'complex body part' that you want to discuss the evolution of and then dedicate a thread to that. It's just without focus the topic tends to spread about all over the place and nobody gets any satisfaction. I offer my five and a half years as a member here as evidence that on the subject of topic sprawl, I have some idea what I am talking about.

In broad terms the thing to do would be to show that two organisms with differing 'complex body parts' are related and share a common ancestry. Then we know there must be an explanation for this. We have already shown that natural selection leads to adaptive changes to a population's genetics. Together these two facts alone constitute evidence of natural selection's role in larger scale evolution. It's not a mountain yet - but it's a start.

I would like to add that bacteria have complex parts too - and they are massively diverse. It's a common impression that all bacteria are bacteria are bacteria - but it's a little unfair!

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.

But to be clear - this is sexual selection. A specific form of natural selection. It isn't typical of natural selection.

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.

Hopefully now we can see that natural selection does not imply sexual selection. It is often the case where sexual selection is acting in the opposite direction to general natural selection. For instance - if we suppose a peacock's tail is sexually selected for its size, there is also natural selection cutting in limiting the size of the tail (peacock's with bigger tails attract more predators perhaps). So yeah - the 'choices' a finch might make are not the be all and end all of natural selection. The environment, including other species, weather patterns, even other genes in the gene pool, can exert selective pressure too.

So frankly, for you or anyone else to say that its because I am not understanding the basics is frankly just bs.

It certainly appears that you have confused natural selection with the mate selection made by an animal. If that's not the case, maybe you can at least see how the confusion arose.

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).

Without knowing what you found laughable about it I can't help, sorry. The answer is, we can. Whether you think it is sufficient is not for me to say.

Why was it necessary to complicate the discussion? The question started out very broad, to allow it to be narrowed over time.

It wasn't. You asked for evidence of natural selection causing evolutionary change and you got it. You then went on to clarify that you meant to ask whether there was evidence for the evolution of complex body parts through neo-Darwinian processes. The difference between what you appeared to be asking and what you meant to ask caused some confusion. Hopefully we can move on from there. Sometimes even the most obvious looking point one tries to make on a forum turns out to be understood differently by everybody that reads it to infuriating results. It is a bit of an art trying to balance ambiguity, condescension, post length and simplicity.

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.

A hell of a lot. Enough to fill a lifetime of learning, by which time a whole new lifetime's worth of knowledge will have no doubt surfaced. And then some. And a bit more.

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.

There are some words which cover such large paragraphs. Instead of recounting the entire body of knowledge that is the theory of evolution and then finishing with 'has this been tested and verified' you could instead have simply asked in your OP - "has the theory of evolution been tested and verified as the explanation for how life has changed on earth over time?" Very short and very general and it would have been rejected as a new topic because of this.

The answer is yes - go read some papers, some books and so on. It cannot be simply covered in a debate like this forum deals with.

You could just start a debate that focuses on the eye.

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.

If you aren't sure what topics are encouraged, and which ones are too general or ambiguous - then don't start any new topics. Just read through some ongoing ones, some older ones and get a feel for things. With broad topics things tend to devolve into meta-debate like this one has, so we try and avoid them since they aren't particularly constructive.

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.

Once again - we have evidence that communication difficulties cause problems. You just up and insulted my intelligence because I wanted to read the article that got you to thinking because I had an idea about how to develop the discussion in a constructive way. You didn't need to launch into a sixth grade lecture about how sometimes people will come across something that 'gets them to thinking'.

Now - here you are, "wanting to learn something about what science can prove nowadays" - which to me suggests that you indeed have a self-confessed problem with the basics. You can learn a lot at this site, if you stop being hostile for a moment. I was trying to be pleasant and civil and take a fouled conversation and lift it out of the soil. But I was a little unclear on what you wanted, so I asked.

If you want to learn - my suggestion is that you create a debate around a small topic. This will allow focussed discussion on that subject, and not only might you learn about that topic, but you might learn some general principles that can be applied elsewhere. Asking for general principles first can work - but I personally think it is more difficult...especially when you don't have a single person who is here to teach you - but instead a crowd of people who come here argue.

If you want to reply, please don't be an arse about it. Maybe we can use this opportunity to discuss something interesting, who knows? If you want to learn some interesting background then you might try the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution if you haven't already done so, it's a fairly standard internet document and you'll be exposed to it before too long if you keep exploring this subject.

If you don't accept common ancestry has been demonstrated there seems precisely no point trying to give evidence that natural selection was responsible for it. So, do you accept common ancestry?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-28-2009 10:31 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 12:25 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 277 of 302 (537556)
11-29-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 9:49 AM


more information please
Hi Bolder-dash, thanks, and you'll excuse me if I am a bit dense here,

Scientifically solid evidence, not conjecture because we have no other theory, that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth.

Evidence of what specifically.

We have evidence that change occurs through the dual mechanisms of mutation and natural selection (plus others). They are distinct processes, but the action of both is more than the action of each individually: both are needed to change a species outside the ancestral pool of hereditary traits. Mutations are needed to add new hereditary traits to the mix available for natural selection to then act, and natural selection then has the opportunity to make use of new traits through their adaption\fitness to an existing ecology. Sometimes this occurs and sometimes it does not (stasis, for example). Ultimately this two step of changes from mutations and natural selection, can result in speciation, where daughter populations become reproductively isolated, either through genetic change/s, developmental change/s or behavioral change/s in the breeding within each of the daughter populations such that they do not breed with the other anymore.

We have evidence that speciation occurs, thus dividing one breeding population into two (or more) newly isolated breeding populations.

This is sufficient to show that common ancestry is an observed (in local time) result of evolution through mutation WITH natural selection.

Common ancestry explains the diversity of life we see on earth.

What type of change are you specifically looking for.

Message 256: 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.

You mention complexity, can you define what you mean by complexity? Please be more specific about what you want to see. The more specific you are the easier it will be for us to provide the evidence you seek.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 9:49 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 278 of 302 (537559)
11-29-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 9:49 AM


Much Better
… that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth.

NS doesn't use RM. NS can not produce or predict RM. NS use heat and cold, flood and drought, bounty and austerity, and sundry other poles — with all the gradiant inbetween to bring death to the unwary (or a lesser reproductive sucess, whichever comes first). NS does use the tools at its disposal to filter RMs that alter the organisms ability to reproduce.

Your way of saying it confuses me. It is like my saying I use the open grain of mahogany to apply paste filler; wherein, actuallity, I use anything from the palm of my hand to a fine, stiff brush to apply the paste filler to the open grain of mahogany. If I were to say the former to a pleb initiate I might expect him to try using mahogany scraps to apply paste filler. Think of the damage he could do.

I hope this is helpful in your quest for knowledge.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 9:49 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1871
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 279 of 302 (537570)
11-29-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by herebedragons
11-29-2009 12:04 AM


Re: Back to Basics
herebedragons suggests:
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?

On the eastern side of Buzzards Bay there are various indentations to the beach as is normal, irregular projections of rocks sticking out and cupped areas that do not. In one of them, on the southern side, the beach is almost 100% rounded rocks approximately 1 to 3 inches in diameter, all worn smooth by time. In the other beachlets on the way to this beach all the rocks are jagged edged mostly. A round rock is very rare there. What is going on? There seems to be a resonance with the tides and shaped of the beach and the bay as a whole that favors the wave action dumping these round rocks all in one place? Very curious. I would say that Natural Selection has selected for round rocks there and not for the other places. And maybe the jagged rocks are being selected against there, or very quickly getting rounded off?


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 283 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 12:47 PM xongsmith has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1871
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 280 of 302 (537571)
11-29-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2009 1:19 AM


Re: Back to Basics
The Doctor says:
Whereas the fact that giraffes and coelacanths can't interbreed suggests that it doesn't.

[joke]

...Hey! Maybe that's where Nessy came from!!

[/joke]


- xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2009 1:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 281 of 302 (537574)
11-29-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
11-29-2009 10:34 AM


Re: natural selection, sexual selection, common ancestry
Look, I believe you are one of the more responsible poster on this site, and I appreciate that you obviously have taken time to reply.

However, as one example of not really getting it, when I talked about the illogical consequences of symmetry being selected for sexually (because to this day we still have a pretty even amount of people with symmetrical faces and people without them, and their success at reproduction doesn't appear to be effected done bit) you have referred me to a thread which discusses why we have equal symmetric parts like ears on both sides of the head, as mirror images of each other. Now while this is very interesting and all and I enjoy that discussion, it sure is nothing about the symmetry I was just talking about. The only similarity was that they both used the word symmetry somewhere in the discussion. A better way to answer that part of the post would been to have simply give your own thoughts on how you think face or body symmetry was selected for during sexual selection, and let others decide if this seems a logical enough conclusion. Or reference a study which does prove this idea is valid-and myself and others can decide for ourselves, or voice our own objections to the findings.

Secondly, you are trying to tell me that common ancestry is evidence for NS working to create life. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. What about this proves that it was natural selection causing this? What about this proves that it was RM causing this? You mean you couldn't have common ancestors if Lamarkism was true, or another as of yet unknown theory. NS is the answer simply because its the only choice you give us? Ancestry is not an explanation for HOW something happened at all, it is an explanation for what. You have problems with making finer distinctions, but continue to accuse me of lacking in understanding. I have a feeling all of you evolutionists want to be able to say what you believe, but you really don't want anyone to challenge the conclusions you have drawn. That is not debate, that is lecture.

I came here to talk about any number of logical fallacies that to me are still not fully explained scientifically with how NS could have created all of these things-but I am interested in talking about the big picture, as well as the small part-so I have simply asked for examples of scientific studies which have shown near proof of the theory. Like a complex body part, be it an eye, be it an ear, or a brain, or the lymphatic system-its worthwhile to have someone say-well, here is what I BELIEVE happened, and here it what science can PROVE happened right now.

The answer is becoming more and more clear as the thread as continued. There are some anecdotal studies, which can be interpreted many different ways, depending on how you look at it. From the examples I have seen so far, the evidence is not that convincing-guppies with oscillating spot populations, and different breeds of finches varying in population sizes during different weather conditions. That's a pretty big leap to saying, NS caused all of life on earth. No, not a pretty big leap, that is a cataclysmic leap.

Finally, you claim it is I who is unreasonable and uncivil, while at the same time (once again!) reserving your own right to decide who is the one with the knowledge and who doesn't.

It seems you are trying to tell me what I should have asked, instead of either answering the original question, or saying that you don't have any specifics but they are there. You are not going to convince me that the problem is all mine, because many of you have complicated the question. Its a simple, and yes broad question. What is wrong with that?

Thank you for your suggestion, but how about listening to my advise-if you don't want people replying to you as an arse as you say-drop your own condescension level, talk on equal terms, or don't be surprised at the result. I don't say anything more offensive to you, then you have said to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2009 10:34 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 12:44 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 284 by lyx2no, posted 11-29-2009 12:53 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 282 of 302 (537577)
11-29-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 12:25 PM


Re: natural selection, sexual selection, common ancestry
I came here to talk about any number of logical fallacies that to me are still not fully explained scientifically with how NS could have created all of these things-but I am interested in talking about the big picture, as well as the small part-so I have simply asked for examples of scientific studies which have shown near proof of the theory. Like a complex body part, be it an eye, be it an ear, or a brain, or the lymphatic system-its worthwhile to have someone say-well, here is what I BELIEVE happened, and here it what science can PROVE happened right now.

it has been pointed out to you that one thread isn't enough to cover ALL aspects. It leads to derailment (which it seems you want to happen). Evolution isn't just one study, one science. it is the study of everything in the world, everything in the past, everything on earth. So to say you want only one thread for all of that is like me asking the same in the faith section about religion. if you can't tell, this site is based on TWO subjects, this WHOLE site, and yet how many sub-forums are there? How many threads? All are in one way or another related to the main topic at hand: Evolution and/or Creationism.

if you want to know how RM or NS helped evolve the eye, start a thread about that.

If you want to know how RM or NS helped evolve the ear, start a thread about that.

You can't start a thread asking one thing, then change it to "give me all the evidence for evolution" (hint: that's alot of what this ENTIRE site does)

All participants have tried their hardest to accomodate YOU and answer your myriad of questions. However, the questions keep changing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 12:25 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 302 (537578)
11-29-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by xongsmith
11-29-2009 12:06 PM


Beachin' Field Trip
[sidebar]
On the eastern side of Buzzards Bay there are various indentations to the beach as is normal, irregular projections of rocks sticking out and cupped areas that do not. In one of them, on the southern side, the beach is almost 100% rounded rocks approximately 1 to 3 inches in diameter, all worn smooth by time. In the other beachlets on the way to this beach all the rocks are jagged edged mostly.

Can you pin-point these beaches. I sould like to go see this for myself as I'm just up the road.[/sidebar]


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by xongsmith, posted 11-29-2009 12:06 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by xongsmith, posted 11-29-2009 11:54 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2796 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 284 of 302 (537579)
11-29-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Bolder-dash
11-29-2009 12:25 PM


Re: natural selection, sexual selection, common ancestry
I came here to talk about any number of logical fallacies…

Ok, you mean like stuff and junk. Now we're narrowing it down.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-29-2009 12:25 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

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


Message 285 of 302 (537580)
11-29-2009 12:55 PM


Finally, thanks to all who participated and made an attempt at adding something worthwhile to the discussion.

The question was-what scientific proof do we have for NS being the great cause of the evolutionary cycle that makes up the diversity of life as we know it (an inference that I think was fairly obvious).

From my point of view, speaking of natural selection as a generic term to mean anything including some rocks being distributed more in one area than another (while one might like to call this natural selection if they like)is not really valuable discussion-nor is it what the average person thinks of when discussing evolution. Nor does it do anything to solve the age old question of-look at all this life around me-how the heck did it get to be this way?

To answer this question, you need to validate NS more fully, not just in terms of making some beaks sizes more common at one time of the year, and less common at other times- but how can it make this complete package. Can it combine with RM, with genetic drift, without some other forces to do what we see? You can believe that it can if you wish, but can you really show that it has. That IT is the thing responsible for making eyeballs. That IT is what makes us attracted to tall Swedish girls in small bikinis?

So this was a chance for some people to explain some incredible scientific studies they had seen, some articles they had read, which really convinced them, that there is no other way to explain what is going on around us.

I say to first prove this, you have to prove that the mutations are indeed random, because if they aren't then it really isn't NS making the decision at all, it is some other force. But alas, there isn't much, and what there is is open to interpretation in any number of ways. So that in itself is an answer.

Many of you have used this opportunity to complain about how the question was asked, instead of trying to say anything. Well, too bad, you don't get to decide what other people want to ask. And furthermore, instead of spending so much time telling others what they should ask, those same people should perhaps be questioning things more themselves. Clearly many here have never spent much time thinking long about it all-they were told what to think, and have just accepted it all. Its need thought, serious thought. Its not an I am right, and others don't know what they are they are talking about issue. No one owns the answer to this question. It requires more knowledge than just reading a biology book. Smart people have been thinking about these questions for many thousands of years, people smarter than you. The ability to be able to think of how we got here doesn't necessarily exist just because it occurred randomly and was naturally selected as an advantageous survival technique. But that's the only tool your side has to work with. I suggest you need a few more tools.

Cheers.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : Because no one tells me what I get to ask.


Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 1:29 PM Bolder-dash has responded

RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019