Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:51 PM
22 online now:
edge, Meddle, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Tangle (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Evolution theory and teratology
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3310
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 16 of 17 (582715)
09-23-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yrreg
09-22-2010 7:54 PM


Re: Of course you have got stock answers to all the questions...
Of course you have got stock answers to all the questions people outside your box address to you.
Stock answers from the stocks of your authority doctrinaire mentors.

Plus the stock strawmen.

Strawmen are what creationists deal in. We try to deal with the truth.

If you were really serious about that, then you can point to specific answers and "stock strawmen" and explain why they are what you claim them to be. Of course, no such exposition will be forthcoming from you.

And it is common courtesy to indicate whom you are addressing.

What is the natural factor in natural selection?

If you noticed all the jaws dropping, that is because you are indicating ignorance of very basic concepts. It would be equivalent to somebody who has lived in a major Western city for decades and and asks for somebody to explain what cars do. Or what should happen when you turn the switch on an electric lamp.

If you possessed minimal familiarity with evolution, then you would already know that answer. Granny Madga is correct: you need to learn something about evolution before you can even begin to try to discuss it (though it is also true that you do not engage in discussion, but that's still no excuse for such abject ignorance).

OK, in brief. The term "natural selection" was coined by Darwin as an analogy to what we see breeders do to create a new breed of animal. They want certain traits, so they select the stock animals that possess something close to that trait and have them breed. After several generations of this, the breeders end up with a new animal breed with the characteristics they were after. In that analogy, new species arise naturally, but instead of a farmer acting as the breeder, it is nature that "takes on that job" (please note that while it is convenient for us to anthropomorphise nature, there actually is not such individual entity called "nature" that performs the duties of a breeder).

Is it the blind and purposeless nature that should not care anything about survival of whatever, as to lead to stability of surviving species, in the time span they do survive in?

Actually, yes, that's about the size of it. But let's step back and take a fresh look at it. Basically, how does life work? How do populations of breeding individuals produce their offspring? How do those offspring compare, genetically and physically, with their parents? How do those offspring tend to fare in the real world? How many of those offspring, and which ones, tend to mature to the point of generating their own offspring?

In my personal opinion, there really isn't any such thing as "evolutionary processes". Rather, what we are describing with such "processes" is the net result of life and populations of organisms doing what they naturally do. That is where the rubber really meets the road. That's getting down to the absolute bare metal. Is what you're trying to push able to deal with that? In my "creation science" experience since 1981 (what is that? Nearly 30 years?), creationists are much more interested in ignoring and denying reality, which is understandble since their claims are contrary-to-fact.

OK, parents produce offspring that are very similar to themselves, yet slightly different. Some offspring are better able to survive to breeding age than others. Despite "lucky accidents", those offspring who are better able to survive long enough to breed do tend overall to outnumber the ones less able to survive long enough, and so they (and their genome -- read up a bit to learn what that means) will tend to have more chances of breeding than their less-well-adapted peers. That will mean that the next generation of offspring will be slightly different from the ancestors who were better able to survive. And the ones out of that new generation who are better able to survive will tend to be disproportionally represented in the that new generation's breeders. Et cetera, et cetera, generation after generation.

OK, that all looks very straight-forward. What part do you not understand?

And if you disagree with that description of how life works, then do please present your alternative explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yrreg, posted 09-22-2010 7:54 PM Yrreg has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 17 of 17 (583053)
09-24-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Yrreg
09-22-2010 7:54 PM


Re: Of course you have got stock answers to all the questions...
What is the natural factor in natural selection?

The interaction of the organism with its natural environment.

Is it the blind and purposeless nature that should not care anything about survival of whatever, as to lead to stability of surviving species, in the time span they do survive in?

Does the finish line care who crosses first?

It is just a fact that the fittest individuals in a population tend to have the most grandchildren.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Yrreg, posted 09-22-2010 7:54 PM Yrreg has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019