|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Suddenly impatient?
A little less than two hours, Message 152 of 16509*08*2006 08:56 PM Message 157 of 16509*08*2006 10:52 PM ... when the post that has issued a challenge to you
A Critique of the "Evolution Essay"Message 1 of 22 06*11*2006 07:59 PM ... to defend your position (and which you still have NOT done) takes 3 months to get an answer. LOL. You had my conditions:
Message 154 If you feel you are being ganged up on, then you can ask for it to be moved to the Great Debate. But you should make some effort to answer the rebuttals that have been posted about your misrepresentations and repeated falsehoods eh? abe: Just to be clear, what I am talking about is a demonstration of a willingness to debate in good faith, actually dealing with the issues raised, and answering them, rather than continued blind unsupported assertion after blind unsupported assertion -- it's the other half of the equation /abe(1) And YOU didn't take them up. Can you tell me why one should 'debate' with a person who has failed to make corrections to something that is an obvious error and fails to acknowledge when they are wrong? That is not debate in good faith, as no matter what the {other person} says it is ignored. Enjoy.(1) - Edited by RAZD, 09*08*2006 10:13 PM -- before your impatient posting Edited by RAZD, : added abe time to quoted conditions edit. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... if someone has something about evolution, evidence, pepper moths, natural selection, etc,... Just one quick yes or no question:
Do you agree that the documented changes in the relative proportions of the {dark\light} variety populations of the peppered moths shows natural selection? Just a simple yes or no. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
quote: Hi! I have tried to read through the thread so I hope I don’t just end up restating what has already been said. I’ve mainly three things to add and I hope they can be to some avail. 1. “Evolution” like any word used in a discourse need to be equally defined by all parties if a meaningful exchange of opinion shall be possible. I myself have some difficulty grasping what exactly is contained in the word “macroevolution” that’s not contained in the word evolution. My guess would be that “macroevolution” signifies the transition from one species to another whereas “evolution” signifies changes in the genotype within a species. A species then is defined by common usage as a group of organisms that can naturally interbreed.2. A proof of this process, i.e. macroevolution, is found in the dog. The pedigrees of dogs are well established and we can trace most of the types back to a proximate common ancestor. We also know that the different types of dogs are a result of selection. So the crucial question is then if this selection has caused different types of dogs to become different species? The answer to that question is yes! There are types of dogs that cannot interbreed due to physiological differences brought about by selection. An example of this would be Grand Danois and Chihuahua. The fact that different dog types are not colloquially talked about as different species does not change the fact that they, in the biological sense of the word, are. /jerker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I’ve mainly three things to add and I hope they can be to some avail. And the third is ... ? (don't leave us hanging eh?) Seriously, thanks and welcome to the fray. Your take on the dogs is a little further than most would go. I would rather say they are in the process of transition but that it has not been demonstrated to the level of horse\mule\donkey yet (not that dogs get much opportunity to make those decisions ...) BUT The issue of dogs is discussed on other threads. See Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution? and Message 11 The issue of micro\macro differences is discussed on other threads. You might be interested in my beginning take on "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? and what I post on Message 180 on that thread. We'd like to keep this thread focused to a discussion of natural selection and whether the peppered moths are a good example of that. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added hot doggy links (dog on dog) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
three things to add It seems like I forgot he third one The third point I’d like to make is a more general one. It’s common among creationists to have a far too wide scoop in their approach to the subject. They often want a proof for, say, that I’ve descended from a single cell organism. The problem with this approach is that there is not a single proof for that but a long and often rather technically complicated chain of evidence that is needed to even get half way. Darwin’s classical theory of evolution is not a proof for my lineage of decent; it’s just a theory that explains changes in phenotypes over time. It does not say that I originate from an ape; it just says that I originate. Once this is established the question “from where?” arise. But this question is a different one! The fact that science can’t give a precise answer to from where I’ve descended does not change the fact that I have! The logical fallacy creationists commit over and over again is to think evolution as a phenomenon is disproved if every single evolutionary change from one cell organism to mammal can’t be put under their noses. The question if evolution does occur is easily proved (just take a look at domesticated animals or bacteria!). The question how it has worked its way from the first self replicating molecule to man is partly a puzzle. Sure we have quite a few pieces, DNA, fossils and embryonic development but we don’t have all the data and thus cannot have all the answers. But the important point is this. If evolution can be established creation is disproved. It doesn’t matter if scientist have got every single branch in the tree of evolution all mixed up. Evolution will still be the correct answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
peppered moths are a good example of that. My expertise on peppered moths hangs in a doubtful scale but at least I can pass on the information that the example of this classis study is represented in Swedish schoolbooks as well. But the main examples are concerned with bacteria since it’s easier to demonstrate evolution in the making in a classroom setting with a strain of coli bacteria than it is with a population of moths. /jerker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If evolution can be established creation is disproved. Logical fallacy? There are many creations, many with no problems with evolution (evolution is the mechanism used) The specifics of literal beliefs that are already invalidated include many things besides the way different kinds of organisms came to be on this particular planet. No world wide flood, an ancient earth, are both facts that some believers have trouble comprehending the significance of. But not all beliefs are invalidated by these either. AND again -- this thread is about natural selection of populations of peppered moths ... Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
hejsan
I'll just add to what razd wrote.
jerker writes:
razd stated it was a logical fallacy, which is correct. the funny thing is that creationists (of the literalist variety) use this very fallacy.
If evolution can be established creation is disproved If evolution is falsified it promotes creationism just because one is proven (or falsified) doesn't make the other automatically right. it could be that God did create the universe--and thus there is still creation. it could be that God did not create the universe--and evolution could be wrong. och valkomen till (spelling?) EvC All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
But not all beliefs are invalidated by these either. My point was simply that if evolution as a process can be established there is no need for the Deus ex machina of the genesis account to explain how we came into being, and that the detail of a singular example such as that of the mouth varieties doesn’t really matter for the case of evolution as a phenomenon. If one argues against evolution one most suppose that the shift in the moth population have been brought about by supernatural means and not a gradual change of the phenotype. Now, few would be ready to defend such a position so instead one goes on attacking details in how the research on the moth was carried out. But the details are unimportant, either you have a gradual change or you don’t. If you do it’s just at matter of getting the details right. But if you don’t, well then you got a whole lot of explaining to do. Yes, I know, there is of cause the third option of migration that presupposes neither evolution nor creation but very intelligent moths! It was not my intention to raise the question of prima causa! That is, I think we all agree, a question well outside the scoop of evolutionary biology. /jerker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
just because one is proven (or falsified) doesn't make the other automatically right Hej hej! Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by “creation”. I was referring to the Genesis account and not a more general idea of a prima causa. In the case of the former we have an either or relationship with Darwinian evolution, i.e., either an instantaneous creation or a gradual formation. You just can’t have both at the same time, in the same manner as you can’t walk fast slowly or talk loud silently. There is just no such thing as instantaneous gradualism! There are good reason to discard creation as a meaningful ontological concept but Darwin’s theory is not one of them and I believe that this is not the thread they ought to be presented in. *smile*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, I know, there is of cause the third option of migration that presupposes neither evolution nor creation but very intelligent moths! Careful now, you don't want to anger ... MOTHRA ... of the genesis account ... We should try to be specific of the types of creationists being discussed. Biblical literalist young earth creationists (BLYEC's)(There are some Islamic YEC's and some Jewish YEC's, but not as many as there are christian) There are also some old earth varieties (OEC's). BUT: none of the YEC's etc that I know have any problem with natural selection. That is what makes their position on the peppered moths so curious. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
aha.
I agree with you on genesis being defunct--but watch out. there are two genesis stories of creation. it's only the first that has the seven days. the second one has the infamous "rib" story (origin of women). sa, var ar lund? (jag can inte stava ret pa svensk, tyvar, men jag hoppas at du forstar vad jag forsokar at tala om)(oh, and my written grammer is pretty bad, too) oh, it looks like you got quote boxes down, but we do have smilies, such as,,,,,:,, and so forth. check out the smilies legend when you make a post. just in case you didn't know. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
Holy books just like the moth is subject to evolution, thus the surgery in the elohist account and the more strict six day version of the priestly account.
Indeed, I understand your Swedish and it is not bad at all. Totally intelligible though some spelling errors but not more than my English without Word! Lund is a city in the south-western part of Sweden in Skane. It houses the countries second largest university and has a population of about 100 000. I came here in the mid nineties to study theology and have been here ever since. Totally worth a visit if you ever go to Sweden! /jerker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jerker77 Inactive Member |
We should try to be specific of the types of creationists being discussed. Thanks for the tip! I’m afraid that the theological technicalities of different creationist movements are quite beyond the horizon even for a Swedish theologian such as me. Here we have liberal deist (50%) atheist (45%) and traditional believers of different denominations account for the rest so the debate tends to be much of an either or here. /jerker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5779 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
I just want to say that I will focus more of my attention and posting to the Great Debate between me and Anglagard, so my posting here may be limited or just non existent. I have classes starting soon, so I want to get the Great Debate going and mostly finished while I have the time.
Remember: God loves you! And He's waiting for you to come to Him, don't hold up, come to your Creator soon! "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024