|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2654 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2567 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Biologists use the peppered moth as a clear example of one of the core aspects of evolutionary theory - natural selection.
Natural selection results in a change in the frequency of existing traits in a population over time. Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause. Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2567 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
According to Jerry Coyne it does! The ToE does not say that all life comes from a common ancestor, ..."Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009] (emphasis added) Jerry Coyne is an esteemed evolutionary biologist and the author of "Why Evolution is True". Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9634 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
CRR writes: The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth. If you'd stopped before making this unfounded assertion or simply said that the result of the beneficial mutation and subsequent natural selection did not result in speciation you would have made a series of evidence based objective comments. Instead you let your irrational bias spoil it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Learn to read.
Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanism not a recitation of the history. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1730 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. ... Indeed, and the normal white variety is called Biston betularia typica While the black variety is called Biston betularia carbonaria They are both members of the species Biston betularia, and they are members of the Biston genus The names show the classification as genus name, species name, variety name Davidjay appears to have trouble distinguishing between species and varieties.
... One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause. Indeed, as discussed on the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection thread they do alight occasionally on trunks and branches:
quote: But that is among the ones he found, which was not many.
Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth. Curiously I am always amused at how adamant creationists are at pointing out this is not an example speciation when it was never intended to be, it is just an example of natural selection (which even the ICR article points out), as noted in the thread (although they are wrong about no new genes):
quote: Evolution requires mutation and selection, so we only have part of the picture here. Recent lab analysis has discovered the mutation that causes the dark version, and that gives us the other part of the picture: this is evolution ... a gene allele is altered, causing variation within the species population, but not speciation. Again, the ICR article noted this as well: "All the while, the two types were interfertile." As I noted in the thread this example tests natural selection but not speciation:
Because speciation is not tested in this scenario, the results cannot be used to validate or invalidate speciation.
... The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, ... Speciation does not occur in situations where there is gene sharing between varieties, so claiming it could is rather a strawman.
... let alone a non-moth. Which is a concept that only creationists seem to argue about: the "hopeful monster" that is suddenly not a member of the "varied-antennae" (Heterocera) supergroup, perhaps not even a member of the Order Lepidoptera, ... and completely bypassing a new genus from Bistula or a new family from Geometridae ... Misunderstanding evolution leads to silly arguments like this. As this thread is about selection, the Peppered Moth more than adequately destroys the thread thesis that selection does not occur -- this is even accepted widely within the creationist ranks. Continuing to argue that selection does not occur flies in the face of the facts and is delusional. We can leave the issue of speciation to another thread, such as our current discussion on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2567 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
jar writes:
You mean in the chapter "What is Evolution" where he says
Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution. quote: Kinda sounds like a description of the Theory of Evolution to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2567 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: As this thread is about selection, No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1730 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240. Where you say creationists accept that selection occurs and then say it is dead? fascinating. Before you start equivocating let me remind you that the OP states:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'. The thread is about selection. Selection IS non-random, virtually by definition. The process of evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Unless ALL offspring survive to reproduce, selection occurs, and you can see it every time you see a dead animal. Every time a predator catches prey natural selection occurs. Every time a herbivore eats plants natural selection occurs. Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies. Natural selection is alive and well and living with a species near you. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vlad Junior Member (Idle past 2752 days) Posts: 27 Joined: |
Being a dedicated evolutionist, I certainly share, nonetheless, the reationist’s opinion of the natural selection (NS) idea as of a substitution for the idea of God almighty. In my eyes, the idea of NS is one of the most preposterous in the history of science — just like phlogiston and universal aether. Perhaps, it is the most preposterous idea of them all
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement — and a few more. RAZD ardently insists that NS takes place in reality — and I fully agree. Indeed, there operates NS among gene alleles, in populations with sexual reproduction. NS among populations also operates - to the bad or to the good. Yet the thing is that there is no Darwinian NS, in the world of sex. A well known circumstance — for instance, see good Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, chapter 3). And not only Dawkins So there is no Darwinian NS, yet Darwinian evolution happily proceeds. How very amusing. And the final stroke: biological evolution needs no natural selection at all This paradoxical circumstance is also well known long since. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9634 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
^^^ Well that's a whole pile of jumbled words. Try explaining what you mean rather than making a heap of assertions.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
CRR writes: The peppered moth is an example of equivocation used by evolutionists.Evolution is true because we have witnessed evolution in the Peppered Moth. [All living forms have come from a single common ancestor] is true because we have witnessed [a change in frequency of existing traits in a population over time] in the Peppered Moth.
Where did any of us ever say that? We say that common ancestry is true because of evidence, such as the correlation between morphological and molecular phylogenies. What we do is observe how random mutations and natural selection impact modern species. We observe that these mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy in living species. Therefore, we look for evidence of nested hierarchies, otherwise known as phylogenies. That is the evidence. It isn't an equivocation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
CRR writes: No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240. Since no one ever proposed a God of Selection it was dead in post 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
CRR writes: Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause. First, we do know which mutations are responsible for the differences in color for peppered moths. Second, the better example is the pocket mice because we do know that they spend time on black rocks and in the light brown desert. We also know the mutations within the Mcr1 gene that separate the two color populations.
Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth. Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth. You seem to be yet another anti-evolutionist who doesn't understand what evolution is. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. Evolution produces diversity amongst descendants. A rhesus monkey is a primate. A modern human is a primate. Our common ancestor was a primate. Humans and rhesus monkeys are examples of how primates started with one species and diversified into many primate species. It is primates from start to finish. Again, you don't evolve out of your ancestry. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Davidjay writes: Get real, its a selected color change.... by a brilliant God for these moths. Why do [you] deny that predation by birds caused the changes in moth color in these populations? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1730 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Vlad
For example, consider the RAZD’s statement that NS is not random (by definition). Together with some evolutionary theorists, RAZD does wrong: Darwinian NS is (where it actually operates) just random process. I am ready to confirm this statement — and a few more. Please do, it should prove interesting. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025