Summations Only

So do you mean that the dog got/evolved its "webbed feet" AFTER getting into a very strong ocean current or BEFORE?If yes, or after, then, how many times did the dog go to the ocean so that it acquired its own webbed feet?Do you have an experiment or record for that?

Thank you, RAZD. I understand ToE but I think it is you who don't.Let us clarify some points:(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.It means that if there is no ecological challenges and opportunities, there will be no response, and there will be no evolution since there is no response, right? Since that is how ToE defines and claims about it, right?So, let us go back to webbed feet again. As you had said that webbed feet, as one traits for dog, is good for ocean and for swimming, am I right? So the common ancestor of that dog, say doggy 1, must had no trait (webbed feet). Since you had specifically said that webbed feet for dog is good in ocean for ocean current and for swimming, then, doggy 1 must had swum in the ocean current many times (its ecological challenges) got its traits there (responses), and passed it to the new dog (evolution), right?Since we are talking about science, is there any scientific research done this? How many times doggy 1 swum in the ocean and got its new trait and passed it to the new generation dog? What ocean? Pacific or Atlantic?I think, I cannot believe it unless I test and verify it. That is science anyway.

TO: Dr. Adequate, Caffeine, RAZDOnce again, I will post this PREMISE 1:

quote:

---

The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition
of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to
ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

Let us call "doggy1" as the common ancestor of the dog that has webbed feet, and "doggy2" the dogs that
received the trait of "webbed feet", OK?ToE said that "population" evolves, OK, I got it.Now,RAZD said that "the ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes...", that means,
the ocean or seas had affected doggy1 (that has no webbed feet)in its environment; doggy1 could not escape from that harsh
environment or new ecological challenges. So in response, doggy1 evolved and got a new trait, i.e., the webbed feet, and
passed that trait to doggy2.The logical questions will be:1. When the new environment changes, did doggy1 did not go
to another place for safety? Did the new ecological challenges block doggy1's way of escape, say
doggy1 did not go to mountain or higher ground?2. If doggy1 could not make it to higher ground, then, how many times should doggy1
swim so that they could survive and get the new trait of "webbed feet"
and could pass that to doggy2?PLEASE, remember that: random mutation will not kick in IF there is no
new ecological challenges. That is the post of RAZD and caffeine.3. So, where did doggy1 live and got its "new trait, the webbed feet"? Near Pacific Ocean
or Atlantic Ocean?

So, how can you explain this?"The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition
of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to
ecological challenges and opportunities."OR"In response to
ecological challenges and opportunities, the process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition
of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation."??

Thank you for your reply beginning from RAZD, caffeine and all the folks here.I understand ToE. I am questioning this premise that RAZD had posted in his OP. Once again, here is the problematic PREMISE 1:"(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities."Look, in a very simple English sentence construction, that premise is telling us cause and effect."In response to ecological challenges and opportunities," accdg to the above Premise 1, "The process of evolution..." does something and includes something. Do you understand how you use the phrase "...in response to..."?I knew that evolution has mechanisms like mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc...but accdg to the above PREMISE1, these mechanisms from ToE or evolution will not kick in unless ecological challenges and opportunities will not arise.So, can you explain and tell me how do you use the phrase, "...in response to...."?

Thank you for the answer. Please, be specific. Okay, let us use the dog as an example without having a "webbed feet". You said that "environment changes". The questions will be, if the environment changes, will those dog (let us say a population of dogs, and let us call that population in that generation, doggy1), will doggy1 cannot go to another place for safety? They have feet anyway, OK? So, let us assume that the environment is so static that doggy1 could not escape from the changing environment, so what will doggy1 do? If the environment is ocean, so, will doggy1 had to swim in that ocean current to live? After a while they evolved and got the "webbed feet" as new trait? You see, you have to see the scenario since it is science in where we can test and verify.ORDid doggy1 live in a remote island lesser or smaller than Galapagos since maybe they could not escape the environment when it changes? That is science and we need that so that we can check for verification. I understand that. But are those doggy1 could not escape or just go to another place to find food to live? They had feet anyway. Are all their feet gone and could not walk especially in static environment? Please, be specific and use reality. Let us be real and be scientific so that anybody can check and test. Thank you.

Then, the PREMISE1 is wrong since it said,"(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities."It should be saying like this:"(1) Natural selection involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities."Am I right?

Thank you, RAZD. Now, let us clarify the OP."(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities." Yes, you used comma in between of these phrases..."from generation to generation, in response to ecological..."By using comma, you are talking both "changes" as affected by this changing of environment.Now, Theory of Evolution is a theory of the origin of species in science, to be exact. ToE is not an abiogenesis nor origin of universe. Biological Evolution is change in frequency of allele. Evolution is change.So, my question will be: when environment changes, did the population has no time to go to another place to live for safety?Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

English is my 3rd language. Thank you for correction:I will repeat again the question:When environment changes, do the population of, say dogs, never evacuate and look for another safer place to live? Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

So, if the population will die out, then, there will be no evolution occurring in any form. I mean, there will be no "common ancestors" for the new species.That means, evolution is not true, am I right? Since if those population could evacuate and look for another place to live, then, there will be no natural selection, am I right? No nat selec, no evolution. So, nat selec is not actually doing its work in mainland or any bigger island, am I right?

Good. Thank you. So, when you say "other population", what do you mean? If say, the dogs has a population of 1,000,000 and they are all scattered on earth, say pop1 = 20,000(n) in this area(a), pop2 = 35,000 in another area, popn= n in another a area. So, the question will be: what other area is possible for evolution? How many individual in population so that evolution will occur? Now, we are only talking/discussing nat selec.How about those dogs that has "webbed feet", what area are they in? Or their common ancestors, where did they live?

I don't know what you are saying. I am discussing RAZD's premise1 that he had posted in OP.

1. Yes, in Africa but Africans can tend their houses and lands. Some go to another places to find food. But animals had no houses to live like dogs so they can go to other places, by following the changes in environment.2. Yes, there will be competition but the competition will never be the caused of those animals to evolve to another species. Either they fight or die. That means, natural selection has no part in the origin of species.3. And the low population of any organisms will never diminish the possibility of nat selc to that population, thus, showing that ToE and evolution is wrong. How low is low is maybe debatable but small population has no possibility of evolution.Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Yeah, there are thousands of another species, that means, natural selection cannot be the caused of the origin of the new species, therefore, evolution is wrong.

To: dwise1,It is not I that is very confused. It is you, probably. ToE, with its 150 years of gathering data and so called "facts", had messed up everything in science. Your post is one example. I am talking about natural selection of evolution, not mutation. Why are you talking about mutation?