|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Which one is better evidence for evolution? Or are they both? Do you agree or disagree with the video? Micro or macro doesn't matter. Evolution is change whether great or small. If your video says that they are different processes then your video lies. The only difference in micro/macro is the time period involved. If you look at changes in phenotype and genotype over 100 generations you will see small changes. The same population over 10,000 generations will see the accumulation of these small differences to the point where the population is called a different species. If your video says anything different then it is wrong.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It's only been a day since this was promoted.
I'm optimistic. This thread could be more correcting misimpressions than fighting monsters.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
The responses to this though appear to be made by people that don't understand either the physics or math of biological evolution. Good. You can correct those errors. What is your first one?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Then tell us what laws of thermodynamics applies to these processes. No. Why would I do that? This is your classroom. You have a problem with thermodynamics? What is it? You tell us how it works.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Try reading the quote from Darwin that I posted Did that. So what? You tell me what you think it says. This is your topic, now. I'm not playing guessing games with you. {abe} BTW, No one cares what Darwin said on evolution 150 years ago. We have advanced the discipline considerably since he wrote his initial observations. If you want to look like less a fool you'll refer to quotes on the modern synthesis.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
You should care about what Darwin said because he was correct. In a lot of ways, yes, but he was not complete. The modern synthesis includes all of Darwin (modified) along with Mendel, evo-devo, population genetics and ++. No one is saying Darwin was wrong as far as his more general observations go. But if you're going to discuss evolution you need to understand more than a few passages of Darwin.
Of course, if you think that modern synthesis explains this, post this explanation, you won't. You really do not understand the subject. Of course the modern synthesis explains it. The modern synthesis includes Darwin. If you really have this big a hole in your understanding of the history of the subject then I have to question your knowledge of the subject in total. Right now you are offering us nothing. What do you say is in that Darwin quote that shows any deficiency in the modern synthesis? Do you have a topic to discuss or just more staged questions?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Do you think that natural selection (what Darwin calls the struggle for existence or what I like to call competition between different variants in a population (and what are these variants competing for?)) and descent with modification (adaptation) are the same physical processes? Oh, you mean reproductive differential. Let's test your knowledge. How do you think the fittest are determined? What is the one overriding factor that controls all of population genetics and, thus, all of evolution? And then how do your concerns with thermodynamics disrupt this set of processes?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Relative fitness must be measured for each particular popula ... Bzzzt! Wrong. Ok, as I suspected you do not know what evolution is. You have your misconceptions of Darwin but no understanding of the actual product.
I can explain the physics and math of Darwinian evolution and correlate ... Bullshit! How can you do these things when you have no idea what evolution is? You have shown your misunderstandings of fitness, reproductive differential, population dynamics, one of the true drivers of evolution. I shudder to think what your views on the genetics side are.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Relative fitness must be measured for each particular population in a given environment. And what is the ONE, the ONLY, metric to measure this fitness?
It depends on the selection condition(s) the population is subject to. No it doesn't. Learn the subject! There is only the ONE condition to assess.
Biological competition "disrupt" (slows) adaptation. This is a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics. This means nothing.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
You can predict the relative fitness of different variants in any environment? No one mentioned 'predict'. Don't try this crap with me. I am super specific in language and context. I suggest you be the same. The issue is assessing fitness in a population, not predicting it. Can you answer the question? What is the ONE, the ONLY, metric to measure this fitness? Hint: It is a measure among generations and across (can you guess how many) generations minimum? This is an academic discipline so, of course, there is a consensus on this definition.
I wrote a short paper for laymen like you, no math. Yeah, the same ego-based bs you posted the last time you were here. Rejected.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Why did the Lenski team say the following: Don't care. Why should anyone answer any of your concerns on evolution when, as you have shown in this thread, you have no idea what evolution is. Math and physics and Lenski the hell out of the thing all you want. You don't understand the subject. You don't know evolution. Your analysis, no matter how mathematically brilliant, is going to be wrong. {abe} FYI. I know the Lenski E. coli experiments. We went round and round on this last time you were pushing your ego here at EvC. You lost.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Fat finger repeat? Sorry.
Edited by AZPaul3, : dup Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Why did the Lenski team say the following: I know the Lenski E. coli experiments. We went round and round on this last time you were pushing your ego here at EvC. You lost.
Message 83Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Note that Haldane's model has been proven to be a conservation of energy process. I hope so or his model would have died in publication. Energy conservation is the law. What does this mean to you? Why did you feel it necessary to point out this obvious requirement in a well established paper? I do not see where this was in dispute. As far as this entire universe goes energy is the limiting factor in everything. Shouldn't surprise anyone that biology has to follow the same regime. What are you trying to establish with this discussion? What is it you are trying to accomplish?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
And it should be clear to you that humans have a reproductive advantage over chimps simply by the population numbers. Why compare human population to chip? They are totally separate organisms inhabiting totally separate niches, subject to different evolutionary stresses. The genotypes, phenotypes, and environments are all different between the two. Humans evolved the capacity to walk upright and travel over vast distances where the chimp did not. We also got smart. Chimp evolution did not do that. Seems reasonable that smart mobile humans can inhabit and move between many more niches, and thus generate a larger population across the planet, than chimps who are confined to a few of theirs. Yes, more bodies mean more diversity is accumulated in the larger population. So what? Are you going to compare humans to ants and their 20 trillion sized population? Can you imagine the accumulated diversity in that population? What is the point of this comparison? That humans and chimps evolved in different directions from the common ancestor? That humans are more fit in more disparate niches than chimps? Do you deny that humans, chimps and ants all came from a common ancestor? Or are you saying that humans and chimps must accumulate mutations in lockstep with each other? What is your point?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024