Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 76 of 302 (536836)
11-25-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 10:08 AM


Re: Natural Selection?
Then why did you title the thread "Has natural selection really been tested and verified?". When you didn't want to talk about just natural selection, but rather the entire evolutionary process, which is more than just natural selection? Why not title it "Has evolution really been tested and verified?" or "Has evolutionary change really been tested and verified?". If that is really what you wanted to talk about? Of course you'll mention evolutionary change when talking about natural selection, because that is the effect selection has.
Bolder-dash writes:
because when I mentioned the phrase evolutionary change in that first post, none of you was aware that I was talking about evolutionary change as it relates to natural selection.
Of courtse we were. Since it is related. However, you wanted to talk solely about natural selection, not about the entire evolutionary process. Or if you didn't, then why title your thread as you have done?
If I wanted to discuss evolutionary change, and not just natural selection, I should have mentioned evolutionary change in the opening paragraph of the first posting (right after I mentioned evolutionary change for the third time perhaps).
No, you should've titled your thread differently, so as to not put people off and safe some time that has now effectively been wasted because you weren't clear in your thread.
So, you actually want to talk about the entire evolutionary proces. Ok, shoot away, what do you want to discuss?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:08 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 77 of 302 (536839)
11-25-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 10:16 AM


I am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE?
Because one common definition of 'evolutionary change' is the changing frequencies of alleles within a population over generations. This encompasses both changes in pre-existing alleles and also the creation of new alleles by mutation.
In terms of the sort of long term complex gross morphological changes you are talking about, i.e. evolution of the eye, obviously both of these things must come into play. In terms of a simple demonstration of natural selection all we need is a population with allelic variation producing differential survival/reproductive success in a particular environment. Obviously the original source of this variation is likely to be due to mutation of some form but having observed that original mutation doesn't change the natural selection we can observe operating in the population subsequently. As an example we can observe selection in action on an assorted population of melanic or wild-type peppered moths without having identified the first melanic moth to appear in the population, or even knowing exactly what the genetic basis of the melanism is.
Obviously when changes in allelic frequency are considered evolution then genetic drift is also seen as a mechanism for evolutionary change, though not adaptive evolutionary change.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 78 of 302 (536840)
11-25-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 10:16 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
Now, since many of you don't believe this topic has anything to do with mutations...
Natural selection doesn't have anything to do with mutations, no.
am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE?
By acting on the changes in the DNA.
Please elaborate.
Elaborate? It really is that simple.
I challenge you to do so without talking about mutations.
I just did. How the changes arise is irrelevant.
Seeing as how natural selection and genetic drift create no new information at all, and on their own say absolutely nothing other than some organisms die before they can reproduce.
So, that still doesn't mean natural selection has anything whatsoever to do wit mutations. Sure, we know the changes arise because of mutations, but that doesn't matter. They could've arisen any which way you like, natural selection would still act upon them.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 12:31 PM Huntard has replied

Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 79 of 302 (536845)
11-25-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 10:16 AM


Now, since many of you don't believe this topic has anything to do with mutations, I am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE? Please elaborate. I challenge you to do so without talking about mutations. Seeing as how natural selection and genetic drift create no new information at all, and on their own say absolutely nothing other than some organisms die before they can reproduce.
Easy.
1. Individuals pass their characteristics on to their offspring.
2. Individuals that have characteristics that aid them will be more succesful in their environment than individuals that do not have such characteristics. This is natural selection.
3. Individuals that are more successful will tend to have more offspring.
4. Over time, individuals that have characteristics that aid them will increase in number faster than individuals that do not have such characteristics. This is evolutionairy change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:42 AM Shtop has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 80 of 302 (536852)
11-25-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Wounded King
11-23-2009 12:01 PM


Wounded King,
I am thankful to be replying to someone who has at least made a effort to actually say something in their reply.
I am not really ignoring the possibility of other mutations acting in accordance with each other, but this is of course simply speculation, and in my opinion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this resistance could crop up by mere chance-in a sense it is saying that protective resistances to diseases are cropping up all the time, but we just aren't aware of them because there is no disease present to illuminate this fact. You might even speculate that we have resistance to diseases which haven't even formed yet.
Likewise, you can say that an eye formed in an early metazoan creature, but this is again just a convenient speculation, and it doesn't actually address the larger picture, because there are a million and one other complex systems, many of which almost certainly could not have developed in simpler creatures. Things like bat echolocation, and the myriad of camouflage techniques used by animals, and so many other things that are unique to only a select few large mammals. You have to view everyone of these as having a long chain of truly bizarre mutations (mutations that we invariably never see in unrelated species) but nonetheless these mutations must be significant in and of themselves to confer some selective advantage..over over over again through each successive mutation. I think it stretches logic to always fall back of this idea that the mutations could have carried some other benefit before they morphed into their current one, or else are so small you couldn't ever notice them-in which case how great could the advantage be. If all of these mutations are always so infinitely small, surely many other factors would contribute more importantly to any animals reproductive success than this seemingly unlikely natural selection advantage any one mutation might create. The lion doesn't always catch the slowest gazelle after all, more likely he probably just catches the one who happens to be the closet in proximity to him when he is hungry. Nor do the the best looking people or best looking birds always end up being the ones who get the most sex. And so it is with most of life I would suggest.
Which brings us back to my original point. Not all of what we call science is based on what we can determine in a microscope. Most of the larger picture is simply conjecture, based on what we can observe and how we choose to interpret it. For all of its claims, relative to most other branches of science, evolutionary theory (and its relation to natural selection in particular) requires the most speculation and is one of the least fact based sciences there are. I think one can easily say it is nearly as much philosophy as it is science.
As such, anyone claiming to KNOW the answer, is not really dealing in honesty in my personal opinion.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Wounded King, posted 11-23-2009 12:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 81 of 302 (536854)
11-25-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Shtop
11-25-2009 11:00 AM


Sorry, but where is the change you are talking about?
Under your scenario you still have the same characteristics you started with. Just less or more of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Shtop, posted 11-25-2009 11:00 AM Shtop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Shtop, posted 11-25-2009 2:32 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 82 of 302 (536862)
11-25-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
11-24-2009 5:37 PM


Re: ... Natural Selection
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Natural selection acts to select the hereditary traits that are better fit to an existing ecology, by the differential reproductive and survival ability of individuals carrying different mixes of existing mutations.
I am still interested in what these tests prove.
In wet periods there are softer seeds.
Natural selection kicks in so the finches that have small beaks have more food and survive and reproduce better thus increasing in number.
During this time natural selection has made it very tough on the finches with the larger beaks as their food supply is reduced. Therefore they do not have as good a survival rate and they diminish in number.
Then we have a dry season and we have harder seeds.
Natural selection kicks in so the finches that have the larger beaks have more food and survive and reproduce better thus increasing in number.
During this time natural selection has made it very tough on the finches that have small beaks as their food supply is reduced. Therefore they do not have as good a survival rate and they diminish in number.
From what I can find out this has been going on for millions of years.
So what has been accomplished?
The only thing these tests prove is that the group that gets the most food survives better than those that have little food. But they all survive. All 13 species.
Could you please give me the definition of species again I have gotten confused reading about the species of finches. I asked that question in my last post to you.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2009 5:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 83 of 302 (536865)
11-25-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Huntard
11-25-2009 10:46 AM


So, that still doesn't mean natural selection has anything whatsoever to do wit mutations. Sure, we know the changes arise because of mutations, but that doesn't matter. They could've arisen any which way you like, natural selection would still act upon them.
I believe this is a fundamentally incorrect statement in a number of ways.
First, let's say organisms never mutated, and reproduced exactly the same way each time-could natural selection work then?
Let's say that every individual in a population mutated into a rock that neither consumed nor moved, and they all spawned more rocks at the same rate of one per century- would natural selection still work?
Or what if Lamark was right, then natural selection could certainly not apply.
What if every mutation that ever occurred was a negative one. Could natural selection still work then?
What if mutation rates were absolutely constant, so that in every third generation (say your great grandfather as a good example) an anencephalic dwarf was produced? Do you think natural selection would work?
The moral of this story is, you are not right just because you say you are.
And BTW, I will use whatever dam title I want, next time read the entire post instead of just the title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 10:46 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 12:41 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 3:27 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 84 of 302 (536867)
11-25-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 12:31 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
First, let's say organisms never mutated, and reproduced exactly the same way each time-could natural selection work then?
Yes. It would most probably lead to extinction of everything, but that's also natural selection at work.
Let's say that every individual in a population mutated into a rock that neither consumed nor moved, and they all spawned more rocks at the same rate of one per century- would natural selection still work?
Mutate...into...a...rock....yeah.... Uhm, I'm not sure if you know how biology works, but that's completely impossible.
Or what if Lamark was right, then natural selection could certainly not apply.
Of course it could. It's just that it would act upon the traits aquired by the indiviidual.
What if every mutation that ever occurred was a negative one. Could natural selection still work then?
Yes, and again, it would probably lead to extinction.
What if mutation rates were absolutely constant, so that in every third generation (say your great grandfather as a good example) an anencephalic dwarf was produced? Do you think natural selection would work?
Yes. Probably extinction again.
The moral of this story is, you are not right just because you say you are.
indeed....
And BTW, I will use whatever dam title I want, next time read the entire post instead of just the title.
It helps to stop the confusion though. Now look what happened, everybody started talking about natural selection, yet you didn't want to talk about that.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 12:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 1:58 PM Huntard has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 85 of 302 (536886)
11-25-2009 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Huntard
11-25-2009 12:41 PM


Well, its an interesting point you are trying to argue. I don't know what it is proving other than any tests proclaiming the validity of natural selection do nothing to support the theory of evolution as a whole.
I can see no conflict between your position and those of the new earth creationists. I think you would have been a valuable asset for the defense in the Dover school board trial.
So disregarding the fact that you are showing that they prove nothing, counting up now, through 85 posts it looks like we have four, ok say five tests that anyone can point to in support of Darwin's theories. We have some finches with varying beak sizes, guppies, some with spots and some without, a disease resistance developing in, how did the author put it, "The fact that this genetic evolution has happened in a matter of decades is remarkable",
And finally one study that while they admitted "linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive", was able to count up fruit flies and measure their habitat diet and size and therefore were able to calculate their ecological adaptation and compare this with their reproductive isolation; and by doing so they found that the overall association was positive with a surprisingly high level of confidence
And if that doesn't convince all you skeptics out there, well, then I guess nothing will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 12:41 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 2:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2009 2:33 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 302 (536888)
11-25-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 1:58 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
Well, its an interesting point you are trying to argue. I don't know what it is proving other than any tests proclaiming the validity of natural selection do nothing to support the theory of evolution as a whole.
Of course it doesn't, since the theory of efvolution is more than just natural selection.
I can see no conflict between your position and those of the new earth creationists.
So, they except the fact that natural selection plays a vital role in explaining the diversity of life we see on the planet?
think you would have been a valuable asset for the defense in the Dover school board trial.
Really? How so? Since I wouldn't be so sure of that, since I'm basically on the plaintiffs side of things. But thanks for the compliment, I guess.
So disregarding the fact that you are showing that they prove nothing, counting up now, through 85 posts it looks like we have four, ok say five tests that anyone can point to in support of Darwin's theories.
No, in support of natural selection working. It is only now that it has become clear that you actually wanted to talk about the entire evolutionary theory that we can begin to provide actual examples of the whole theory. Oh, and 85 posts isn't a whole lot either, certainly not when there was apparent confusing form the beginning about what the topic actually was about.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 1:58 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 87 of 302 (536892)
11-25-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 11:42 AM


Sorry, but where is the change you are talking about?
Under your scenario you still have the same characteristics you started with. Just less or more of them.
Indeed. Less or more characteristics means not the same amount as before, in other words, there has been a change.
Did you notice how I never said anything about how the characteristics arose? Could have been by mutation, or recombination, or genetic drift, or god's almighty powers at work. It really doesn't matter. As long as they are there, natural selection will act upon them.
Edited by Shtop, : No reason given.
Edited by Shtop, : markup

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2009 2:41 PM Shtop has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 88 of 302 (536894)
11-25-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
11-25-2009 1:58 PM


Wow, you're right, its almost as if somebody stopped us from presenting the masses of data that has been accumulated showing natural selection in microorganism, Oh wait! It was you.
Showing natural selection on populations in the wild is hard. It may seem easy to you in your armchair drinking your brandy and smoking that cigar, but for field biologists it is a massive investment of time and effort, not to mention not being as easy to attract funding for as sexy new technologies like bacterial whole genome resequencing which can pinpoint the genetic basis of specific bacterial traits. Shockingly the experiments that can be done in a lab with a flask full of E. coli predominate, because scientists are pragmatists and don't arrange their research based on the pre-concieved notions of creationist/IDists/whatever stripe of evolution denial you adhere to. As I believe someone pointed out, when you talk about choice in a sexual species, as you did in the OP, you seem rather to be talking about sexual selection.
Also, I can't imagine why no one has posted more examples given the way you thoroughly discredited the ones that were given. No, wait! That didn't happen at all. You just made it clear that in fact your thread about natural selection was actually about random mutation and whether mutation rates were sufficient to generate the neccessary variation, something completely unclear from your OP about natural selection.
The idea that having failed to show a clear origin for 30-100 million species is a blow for evolution seems patently absurd. It is a science essentially only 150 years old and for the modern synthesis the age is closer to 50 years. Even if every scientist on the planet had been working round the clock for those 50 years on such a project I doubt we could have provided a clear origin for even a fraction of those species, in many cases the divergences may be so far back that such a reconstruction is impossible in anything approaching the sort of detail you seem to demand.
Once again an armchair 'creationist' tell us how trivially easy it should be for scientists to do all sorts of things, were evolution to be true, and if that doesn't convince you evolutionists out there, well, then I guess nothing will
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 1:58 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 11:13 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 302 (536900)
11-25-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Shtop
11-25-2009 2:32 PM


Why yes, pedantic IS my middle name.
Could have been by ... genetic drift
Except it couldn't because genetic drift isn't a source of novel variation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Shtop, posted 11-25-2009 2:32 PM Shtop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Shtop, posted 11-25-2009 3:53 PM Wounded King has not replied

Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 90 of 302 (536911)
11-25-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Wounded King
11-25-2009 2:41 PM


Re: Why yes, pedantic IS my middle name.
Thanks for the correction. I'm no expert, just an interested layman. I must say it made me snigger that you object to genetic drift but not to goddidit =)
Point remains: the source of the variation doesn't matter.
Edited by Shtop, : silly typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2009 2:41 PM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024