|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has natural selection really been tested and verified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Let's take it from the top.
(1) Evolution is a heritable change in the composition of a gene pool. This would include a lot of things. The changes in the beaks of the finches is evolution. The descent of humans from what we may as well call "monkeys" would be evolution. If every lioness in the world stopped giving birth to lion cubs and started giving birth to unicorns, and this involved a change from lion DNA to unicorn DNA (and how could it not?) then this would also be evolution. Indeed, if all lions suddenly turned into unicorns, by magic or the will of God, and this change was inherited by their offspring, then this too would be evolution. (2a) The principle of common descent is the proposition that all present species have been produced from just one original life-form by evolution. (2b) A claim of common ancestry concerning any bunch of species is the claim that they all evolved from the same species. So common descent is the claim that all species have common ancestry. (3) The theory of evolution is a theory about how evolution happens. It proposes that it occurs as a result of such well-known genetic processes as reproduction, mutation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, natural selection (including sexual selection), artificial selection, genetic drift, and the laws of probability. Note that this theory is a constraint on evolution (just as every other scientific theory is a constraint on its subject matter). It says what can't happen --- for example, it rules out lions giving birth to unicorns. The principle of common descent is almost always taken to be the initial condition for the theory of evolution, so much so that people often speak of it as part of that theory. I've done that myself, I admit. But to be accurate we should separate them, just as the proposition that the Universe began with a Big Bang is separate from Einstein's theory of General Relativity. (4) The law of natural selection is the proposition that those organisms which are genetically best suited to propagate their genes will indeed tend to get their genes propagated better than those organisms that are less well-suited to that task. --- Now, let's look at what creationists should be saying. You shouldn't say: "I don't believe in evolution", 'cos it happens. You shouldn't say: "I don't believe in the theory of evolution" unless that's absolutely what you mean. Because a lot of creationists do believe in it, and believe that they can use it to disprove common descent. My favorite creationist slevesque is going down that route. Remember that, as I said, the theory of evolution places constraints on what evolution can do. If anyone wants to prove that common descent couldn't possibly happen, then the theory of evolution is the only tool they've got to work with. You shouldn't say: "I don't believe in natural selection", because the law of natural selection is so obvious that you could prove it from your armchair without even glancing at nature. What you should be saying is: "Yes, evolution happens, we observe it. And I grant you, indeed I insist, that there are no known mechanisms for evolution except those enumerated in the theory of evolution. And in particular the law of natural selection is so obvious that no sane person could dispute it. What I dispute is the common ancestry of men and monkeys and indeed the whole principle of common descent". And if you were someone who argues after the style of slevesque, you should then add: "As a matter of fact, I think that the theory of evolution puts the tin lid on the whole notion of common descent". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
right so no new species evolved...they were still finches. Right. No-one has ever claimed otherwise. We claim that this is an example of natural selection in action.
this is just moving the goalposts. What really was happening to the finches is that they were adapting to change. Like animals who loose their winter coat in summer. No, not like that. This is not a change that happened to any finch as an individual. No particular finch lengthened its beak. What happened was that the finches with longer beaks had more offspring. This seems to be where you're getting confused. What happened was not like a cat shedding its fur in summer, or like me getting a tan when I moved to a sunnier climate. No individual finch changed. The reproductive success rates of the finches changed, so the proportion of the genes in the gene pool changed. That's what makes it evolution.
I take it that this is how the ToE has changed greatly over the years. You've separated 'descent from a common ancestor' and the 'ToE' as if they are two different things. in a few words, please explain the difference between: 'common descent' 'the theory of evolution' Anticipating your need, I did that in my previous post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But that is not what the study shows. It simply shows in wet times the species that has the small beaks have a better survival rate than those with large beaks. It also shows that the species that has the large beaks survive better in the dry times than those with the small beaks. It does not show the species with the small beaks growing large beaks, and the species with the large beaks growing small beaks. * sigh * We're not talking about two different species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You know Peg, one of the reasons why evolutionist have been able to stifle the conversation, and argument in their favor regarding schools and other avenues for learning more about our existence, is by doing exactly what they do on this site. They attempt to belittle and characterize anyone who disagrees with their position as being whacky, uneducated, brain-washed religious zealots, or people with their heads in the sand. They do it here on this forum (which in actuality is a evolutionist website-which allows creationists to participate, and they do it regularly to you. Anytime they are challenged to defend anything, they throw out the same card time and time again, their ace in the hole-"Oh, you just don't understand science." But has it not occurred to you that in your case this is true? That you do not, in fact, know evolutionary biology from a hole in the ground? You may have heard the expression: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight". Well, to continue that metaphor, you have brought a turnip to a gunfight. You have pointed it at your opponent, you have shouted "BANG" very loudly, and now you are throwing a hissy-fit because instead of him politely lying down and saying "OK, you shot me, I admit that I'm dead", he's standing there laughing at you for bringing a turnip to a gunfight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ok, so right here is where we see that the original theory of evolution - Descent with modification leading to all the millions of forms of life - has changed to inheritable change in the gene pool ... No, you're wrong. Read the definitions again. You are still confusing evolution with the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution with common descent. The last confusion is forgivable, the first is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Exactly how many posts in this thread can you read that refer to the topic? After you can answer that question, then perhaps you can tell me how worthwhile the forum is, and explain to me how its a debate, as opposed to a trial where the plaintive is also the judge, the jury , and the bailiff. Enjoy your flagellation. I think I will stick to sites that actually have a real moderator for now. Or even no moderator would be an improvement. If this means that you're going to take your ball and go home, then goodbye. I should still advise you to learn the meaning of the words that you're using if you ever wish to engage in any further debate on this topic. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Has speciation occurred in Galapogos finches or not? Of course --- but not during the few years that anyone has been looking, and no-one has ever claimed that it has.
Or has it been observed anywhere for that matter? Yes. But don't just take my word for it. For example, the CreationWiki states:
Speciation, or the formation of a new species, does occur with some regularity. And the foremost creationist site on the internet, Answers in Genesis, states:
New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. When creationists have so far given up on denying speciation that they're now claiming it as "an important part of the creationist model", then I believe that the debate is over. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Further debate would imply that you actually debated on this topic. I see no evidence of that. You're good at not seeing evidence for reality. Er ... should I congratulate you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Please confine your discussion and comments to the topic. Oh, that thing. What happened to that? We were talking about moths and guppies and finches and actual observations of the law of natural selection actually happening, which seemed like splendid ways to test the law of natural selection, and then somehow the stupid bomb exploded. --- P.S: My previous post was posted after your warning, but I started posting it before I'd read it, and so it was not intended to be in defiance of your fiat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess that means that no-one is allowed to answer post #241, right?
Then why is it still there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
one very crucial point in the golapogas finch study...one that was not promoted too loudly....was that the different species of finches could still breed and produce offspring that survived better than the parents. That's not actually true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You left out part of the quote from CreationWiki (I wonder why???) Because I am not obliged to quote everything they've ever written when I merely wish to prove that they admit that speciation happens. The fact that they have also said many things which are stupid and false is not my concern.
And the closest quote I could find on Answers In Genesis are: Unfortunately their server is down, so I can't help you with that right now.
I have read the creationist literature, but have not used it on this forum. It would be dismissed as creationist propaganda. Right. But when even creationist propagandists admit speciation, doesn't that tell you something?
Thus this biological barrier has not been broken. Have I misinterpreted these studies? In order to misinterpret them, you'd have to have read them. So I suspect that you haven't misinterpreted them, but rather that someone else has misinterpreted them for you.
So this supports the idea that a genetic barrier exists. Whereas the fact that giraffes and coelacanths can't interbreed suggests that it doesn't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The study proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the finches that get the most eatable food survive and reproduce better. Thank you. Are we done here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have read the Grants' papers on the finches. What I was disputing was not your claim that they hybridized but that the hybrids were fitter than the parent species. If this was so, then surely they'd have displaced them? At any rate, I can't think offhand what mechanism could prevent this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Scientifically solid evidence, not conjecture because we have no other theory, that NS (through the use of RM) is responsible for the complexity of life on earth. I believe that you were asked for a definition of "evolutionary change". I'm fairly sure that that isn't one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024