Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
25 online now:
Faith (1 member, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,671 Year: 18,707/19,786 Month: 1,127/1,705 Week: 379/518 Day: 55/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
Trae
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 161 of 213 (391537)
03-25-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Quetzal
03-10-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Mobbing
I am a bit confused, is it not the case that a mutation can be passed where it is not beneficial? In the cases of blue beaks does not the ToE permit that the swan’s ancestor was selected for reasons apart of beak color and it just simply was the case that the blue beaks became dominate for reasons apart of beak color?

Let us ignore the (C. Cygnus) for the time being as it may be understood that is was actually specifically selected for some reason and I am not so much interested in that specific animal as the implication I see in the thread that the ToE requires that every mutation is specifically selected directly.

I guess what I am asking, is does the ToE not make provision for a species simply acquiring traits that are neutral to natural selection? By omission, some seem to be suggesting that every single attribute of a species has to further natural selection, while it seems to me that neutral traits could be propagated though a species as long as they weren’t sufficiently detrimental and as long as those traits did not prohibit mating.

Seems to me Creationists spend a lot of time trying to trip up biologists for explanations of traits as if the lack of an explanation from some specific trait somehow disproves ToE. Isn’t an answer that simply sometimes variations within an acceptable range can be insignificant to the overall natural selection process?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2007 7:47 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Trae, posted 03-25-2007 8:12 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply
 Message 163 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2007 9:29 AM Trae has responded

Trae
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 162 of 213 (391552)
03-25-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Trae
03-25-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Mobbing
It seems that some posts after mine may be addressing this with the phrase "Genetic Drift" it still seems to me that implied concepts such as purpose and intent seem to be overly creeping into the subtext here.

Edited by Trae, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Trae, posted 03-25-2007 6:13 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Trae
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 167 of 213 (391724)
03-27-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Quetzal
03-26-2007 9:29 AM


Re: Mobbing
Thank you for the explanation.

When I used acquired I mean in the sense of the trait populating from the individual though the rest of the species. I am sure there is a standard term for that. I just did not know what it might be.

On a side note, I wonder if all these claims by IDists and creationists feeling they’re being told half-truths, that scientists waffle, and are making overinflated claims, might not be due in small part to explanations which are over simplifications geared towards lay people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2007 9:29 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Quetzal, posted 03-27-2007 9:59 AM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019