Evolution; A challenge.

[TJ99]

Further more, on what basis can the biological matter of an organism interpret the forces/pressure from the organisms surroundings in order to bring about physiological change in that organism to adapt to the said pressure.I'm not referring to bacteria.
Question: Does natural selection (using this term broadly), as the driving force of evolution, always improve the organism from generation to generation?

The organisms themselves do not evolve. It's really great that you seem to actually want to learn something here. Seriously. But please, PLEASE read the article in the OP. It explains everything so well. It will also help you with misconceptions like the above.

 

[Ekstasis]

The organisms themselves do not evolve. It's really great that you seem to actually want to learn something here. Seriously. But please, PLEASE read the article in the OP. It explains everything so well. It will also help you with misconceptions like the above.

I have read the article, probably 4 times already plus many other articles. I've also read somewhere that it's not the organisms that evolve. If organisms does not evolve, what does evolve then?
Surely the changes are observed within the organism. Please don't come back with a fully functional organism is born...we know this

 

[Ekstasis]

The organisms themselves do not evolve. It's really great that you seem to actually want to learn something here. Seriously. But please, PLEASE read the article in the OP. It explains everything so well. It will also help you with misconceptions like the above.

Not sure you understood what I meant. I get what you're trying to bring across. It boils down to a fully functional animal being born, right?

Look at what I'm asking here...

Further more, on what basis can the biological matter of an organism interpret the forces/pressure from the organisms surroundings in order to bring about physiological change in that organism to adapt to the said pressure.I'm not referring to bacteria.
Question: Does natural selection (using this term broadly), as the driving force of evolution, always improve the organism from generation to generation?

And that last question pls?

 

[Techne]

Exactly. Which is why I'm going to stop discussing it now. The lunatic fringe are quick to jump on this insane "how do you interpret natural selection" teleological debate as if it somehow has any bearing on one of your OP questions, in a desperare attempt to hide the fact that they haven't even bothered answering a single one, so I just tried to point out that it doesn't matter in any case. I see now that I'm wasting my time.

Lunatic fringe? How are you ever going to take part in an intellectual discussion whereby you are going to convince others of your position if you insult them?

And why are you allowed to insult others?

 

[Techne]

@Techne, I haven't read any of your posts where you are clear about your own stance on ToE. I do agree with the notion that "natural selection" is a descriptive term for the end result of processes/mechanisms such as mutation,drift etc. and not a force/mechanism on it's own.
I might be ignorant as to my understanding of the ToE in totality as it's laid out as I'm sure many others who fiercely stand by it, don't fully understand either. I'm not ignorant to the fact that species have changes within each generation. What I don't grasp is the split from the first anchestor organism/s into the different orders. Today we have bacteria,insects,mammals, oak trees etc. - all of this from a single sell organism over time....Speciation to this extent is not an easily understood concept.

I think part of the problem has to do with a proper definition of the term "species". Read up on the species problem. The only way I see it being resolved is if we return to some sort of essentialism (for example as discussed here and here).

So let's for a moment assume essentialism is true and apply it to the evolution of colour. See figure below:

Imagine the magenta as the earliest life forms and the other colours correspond to the first appearance of each species of colour in the fossil record. For the purpose of this demonstration assume that there are essentially 6 different species. Magenta, Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan and Blue.

Now Magenta can be the last universal common ancestor of all the colors but we still see some specimens of the magenta color at present. But we also know that there had to be a first instant some time in the past where the first Red color came into being. we may not pinpoint it and it may really be indeterminate for us. All we know is that there had to be some first Yellow color. The same applies to the other species of colour. Now imagine the Blue is the same as the human species. It had a common ancestor with Cyan (say for arguments sake it was Green). But there was also a first instance of Blue.

There may also have been cases in the past where yellow changed to red species or many other examples of similar changes. This is of course just an analogy, but I think it may be useful to understand how speciation happens.

 

[Techne]

Further more, on what basis can the biological matter of an organism interpret the forces/pressure from the organisms surroundings in order to bring about physiological change in that organism to adapt to the said pressure.I'm not referring to bacteria.

I think you are referring to adaptation of individuals to particular environments. Each individual has an intrinsic potential to adapt to various environments. In order to understand this you need to study physiology and biochemistry.

Question: Does natural selection (using this term broadly), as the driving force of evolution, always improve the organism from generation to generation?

No, natural selection does not improve anything towards some goal. It is just a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits.

 

[TJ99]

Lunatic fringe? How are you ever going to take part in an intellectual discussion whereby you are going to convince others of your position if you insult them?

And why are you allowed to insult others?

People who ignore the facts, for whatever reason, are loony. Deal with it. (Note that I'm not saying people who interpret them differently. I mean those who choose to believe what they want instead of what the facts suggest, normally for religious reasons) In other words the people who this thread is aimed at. I.e. not you.

 

[Techne]

People who ignore the facts, for whatever reason, are loony. Deal with it. (Note that I'm not saying people who interpret them differently. I mean those who choose to believe what they want instead of what the facts suggest, normally for religious reasons) In other words the people who this thread is aimed at. I.e. not you.

I don't care who your insults are aimed at. Why are you allowed to insult other people irrespective of their views? Your insults are not constructive in any way.

 

[TJ99]

Not sure you understood what I meant. I get what you're trying to bring across. It boils down to a fully functional animal being born, right?

Look at what I'm asking here...



And that last question pls?

You're asking how the cells "know" what's going on outside, so they can adapt? Is that what you're asking?

In that case, the answer is, they don't. They can't. And they don't need to.

 

[TJ99]

I don't care who your insults are aimed at. Why are you allowed to insult other people irrespective of their views? Your insults are not constructive in any way.

I didn't insult anyone. So kindly get off your high horse. Kthx.

 

[Techne]

I didn't insult anyone.

Of course you did. Labelling others as lunatics.... never mind, waste of time :erm:.

 

[Forrest]

I had a response to Alloytoo typed out but I'm not even going to bother any more. The fact remains that it's unproven and probably unprovable. Everything that's been found so far have either been made to fit or simply dismissed. Nobody has been able to come up with a test to make it falsifiable. Haldene seems to set a very high standard that I'm sure will make even creation falsifiable.

A precambrian rabbit oh my.
"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" - Tom S. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

Few people know of archeology's dirty little secret as some have put it. Fossil rocks are dated primarily by what fossils are expected to be found in them. So much for finding that precambrian bunny when you use the bunny to "determine" that it's post-cambrian.

Now I see you take my comment which anybody can see refers to DNA as an admission that the "TOE" is not only falsifiable but proven. Which means you either have bad reading skills or are deliberately twisting my words.

In any event the fact remains that facts still have to be proven as confirmed by your own dictionary definition and that theories should not be taken as facts. That wasn't even the issue which was that of a theory (macro evolution) being presented as fact. You have to prove that it can and did happen. I do not have to prove that it can't. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me disproving it... right, try pulling the other one.

Also please could we get back to the topic and stop this totally unrelated debate now.

Oh my, and what group is it that always injects garbage and unrelated vitriol aimed at creationists into these kinds of threads? Yes whatever your majesty.

It's not in the one the thread is about. By the way, I did read what you said, and I even agree with most of it. I'm not saying you're wrong, the problem is it's got nothing to do with the question and you know it. It makes zero difference.

Say what? Wait a minute let's backtrack here:
"May I invite anyone who does not accept evolution to a challenge?"
"Right, so if you object, please detail your objection to these five mechanisms:
1. Natural Selection"

First off the OP seems to use "evolution" to mean "the theory of evolution." If so that's perfectly ok and it's how most of us see it as well. But he never states that this is how he's using the term. That's another reason why it would help if he explains how it is he understands the subject. I see no reason why someone who is being sincere and honestly wants to learn would object to that as opposed to someone who just wants to win an "argument". This whole "challenge" smells of an argument that was lost in another thread.

I'll attempt to explain to you why it matters one last time. If it's just descriptive you're simply calling whatever is left the result of natural selection. This is AFTER the fact and there is no way to determine that this result should be favoured by these specific environmental pressures. If you could witness multiple universes in action you could witness different outcomes for exactly the same conditions in which case neither is the result of natural selection. As it happens you are just describing one outcome as the result of natural selection.

Even if it's not completely by chance it's still like describing the flow of water through a stream. In hindsight it's easy to see where it is flowing but you wouldn't want to build your house downstream from a nearby dam as you have no way to predict its exact flow. In the same way environmental pressures can't accurately be claimed the cause of a specific result as they are unpredictable. It would be more accurate to say it's the result of enviromental pressure (singular) as a whole but not necessarily a repeatable result for repeatable conditions.

Why does it matter? If it's used proscriptively like Darwinian evolution it becomes the cause for mutation or a mechanism like it is listed in the OP but few (if any) biologists have this view. It's almost universally seen as descriptive iow not a mechanism in which case Endler calls out a "surprising lack of hard evidence" that it results in any evolution. So descriptively it's weak evidence even for support of evolution itself.

Similarly Dr. Purdom has put forth that there are as yet no discovered truelly beneficial mutations. A mutation that makes bacteria antibiotic resistant makes it weak when the antibiotic is removed. Evolution only changes it's fitness for the environment but has never resulted in a clearly marked overall improved fitness level or iow the addition of information.

Darwin's finches are not undergoing any net-evolution. Their beaks are changing back and forth. That is adaptation which is very much science but it is a creationist concept taught for ages already that Darwin hijacked. Your "science" is therefor not the only science.

What the OP now seems to want is one objection for 5 very broad concepts (not necessarily mechanisms) which is not reasonable. Many objections have been raised all through this thread. Just because he, you, and so many others close your ears to this does not mean the questions were not answered. They were. Saying otherwise is like not being able to look past the sapling to see the forest.

What am I missing? This seems incredibly simple... What are these pages and pages of discussion actually about?

Too simple in fact. In addition there are many factual errors on lions, antelope, peacocks and the fact that what actually causes speciation is still being hotly debated. The problems with your articles have been pointed out to you and you were asked to give your own explanation of how you see it. Instead you give some random quote of Dawkins that only people who don't understand evolution reject it which seems rather disingenuous in the context. And please remove those provocative labels from the thread.

People who ignore the facts, for whatever reason, are loony. Deal with it. (Note that I'm not saying people who interpret them differently. I mean those who choose to believe what they want instead of what the facts suggest, normally for religious reasons) In other words the people who this thread is aimed at. I.e. not you.

Hmmm... now read that again and see who constantly does exactly that yet we don't keep throwing insults at them. Then go and read who consistently in every thread keeps throwing the first low blows. It speaks of low moral character and it's doing more for our cause than you could ever know. Deal with that!

 

[Forrest]

Characteristics of evolution syndrome include:
Frequent use of bizarre jargon such as "quote mining," "moving the goalposts," and "fundie"
A belief that consensus can somehow define scientific truth, even though consensus cannot define mathematical truth
A tendency to be easily amused by deceit
An utter lack of open-mindedness
A superficiality or pseudo-intellectualism
A lack of critical thinking
Over-reliance on name-calling
Ruthlessly demanding "provable fact" by the other side while themselves insisting on unproven theories
Utter intolerance for other positions in science
A complete lack of curiosity and knowledge about anything that might contradict materialism, such as migration and homing
A complete ignorance about the Bible, despite its historical value, and even though evolutionists pretend to be learned
A tendency to be irrational atheists (see: Causes of atheism)
A tendency to favour non-democratic political ideals such as socialism or fascism
An over-reliance on academic authority

Evolution syndrome particularly afflicts people who have some educational background without having the intellectual depth of more accomplished peers. They are like minor league baseball players who take steroids to try to get to the major leagues: they think that harping on evolution will gain them credibility they lack based on their intellect. Evolution syndrome can be seen on wikis, Usenet groups, faculty positions below full professorships, and some less selective doctoral programs.

There is a high incidence of atheism among this group and indeed, many if not most atheists suffer from evolution syndrome. Whether atheism is a cause of evolution syndrome or vice-versa is still to be discovered, but the number of theistic Evolutionists suggest that the link is not absolute.

Keeping an open mind, not obsessing about one's own views, and avoiding the insistence that others should share in one's view are key to avoiding evolution syndrome.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_syndrome
Emphasis mine

 

[SanchoP]

Forrest, you clearly have a head on your shoulders, so I'm not going to treat you like an idiot. I just have one thing to ask you: does your rejection of evolution have anything to do with a certain religious following? You don't have to answer here, I think I'm done following this thread anyway. But think about it, don't you think you're maybe reading between the lines to support what you want to think is true. And don't turn that around and say "we're" just the same. If evolution were disproved tomorrow, wouldn't give a rat's fart. I would be surprised, and interested in learning the new theories, but I have no vested interest in the veracity of evolution. The only reason I say this is that you seem to act like people really want evolution to be true or something, when they really don't care. They're just accepting the best explanation for the facts, which is quite sensible I think.

EDIT: Oh snap, I just saw your last post. I'm sorry, but I take back the "head on shoulders thing" but the rest still stands. And sorry about the formatting, writing this on my phone...

 

[Ekstasis]

@Forrest, you seem to have read up quite a bit on ToE. I've asked the question before and nobody answered me.
Does natural selection (as the term is intended) always improve each generation of a species in it's environment? What is your understanding?

 

[Nicko]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_syndrome
Emphasis mine

Don't think you should quote from conservapedia to prove a point; isn't that a joke site? Its like me quoting from www.hayibo.com to backup a political view.

 

[Ekstasis]

Don't think you should quote from conservapedia; isn't that a joke site?

You're making the same mistake as many others. Instead of judging the info. you judge the source.

 

[Nicko]

You're making the same mistake as many others. Instead of judging the info. you judge the source.

Was just glancing at this thread, wasn't in the mood to get into a long discussion. You just really shouldn't be quoting from that site. The only time I ever see people quoting from it, is when they laughing about the content, thats why I thought it was a like uncyclopedia.wikia.com, or like one of those satirical Christian forums where they pretend to be Christian extremists.

There is really just no need to use that site seeing as Wikipedia has basically eeeverything, and it has been proven to be more factually accurate than even encyclopaedic!

Here is a bit of advice I will share for free, never get your information regarding topics from a site that shows a heavy bias towards a agenda/view. Especially ones that are so blatant about their bias that they put it in their name like conservapedia (if it isn't a satirical site)

EDIT:
Come to think of it, I actually completely disagree about the source not being important. Its pne of the reasons people reference their work, but anyways that is a discussion for another time. Don't want ot derail this thread too much

 

[alloytoo]

Does natural selection (as the term is intended) always improve each generation of a species in it's environment? What is your understanding?

What do you mean by "improve?"

If by "Improve" become better suited to the environment in which the population exists then the answer is no.

Changes may occur which decrease fitness, but not to the extent that the species isn't able to reproduce.

Take for example the Peacock, a large flashy tail uses resources, and is heavy making the peacock vulnerable to predators. The large flashy tail however also gets him the ladies.

 

[Jab]

I had a response to Alloytoo typed out but I'm not even going to bother any more. The fact remains that it's unproven and probably unprovable.!

Incorrect

Everything that's been found so far have either been made to fit or simply dismissed. Nobody has been able to come up with a test to make it falsifiable. Haldene seems to set a very high standard that I'm sure will make even creation falsifiable.!

Incorrect.

A precambrian rabbit oh my.
"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong.' A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" - Tom S. Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, p. 66-67
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216!

There is no circular reasoning with regards the fossil record. The geological stratum can be dated with radiometric dating. Because the fosil record so accuarrtly follows the radiometric dating is is short hand method for geological dating.

Few people know of archeology's dirty little secret as some have put it. Fossil rocks are dated primarily by what fossils are expected to be found in them. So much for finding that precambrian bunny when you use the bunny to "determine" that it's post-cambrian.!

Incorrect see above.

Now I see you take my comment which anybody can see refers to DNA as an admission that the "TOE" is not only falsifiable but proven. Which means you either have bad reading skills or are deliberately twisting my words.

In any event the fact remains that facts still have to be proven as confirmed by your own dictionary definition and that theories should not be taken as facts. That wasn't even the issue which was that of a theory (macro evolution) being presented as fact. You have to prove that it can and did happen. I do not have to prove that it can't. Trying to shift the burden of proof onto me disproving it... right, try pulling the other one.!

Evolution has been proven to happen. Multiple times.

Oh my, and what group is it that always injects garbage and unrelated vitriol aimed at creationists into these kinds of threads? Yes whatever your majesty.


Say what? Wait a minute let's backtrack here:
"May I invite anyone who does not accept evolution to a challenge?"
"Right, so if you object, please detail your objection to these five mechanisms:
1. Natural Selection"

First off the OP seems to use "evolution" to mean "the theory of evolution." If so that's perfectly ok and it's how most of us see it as well. But he never states that this is how he's using the term. That's another reason why it would help if he explains how it is he understands the subject. I see no reason why someone who is being sincere and honestly wants to learn would object to that as opposed to someone who just wants to win an "argument". This whole "challenge" smells of an argument that was lost in another thread.!

The OP's view understanding of the subject is irrelevant. Answer the questions if you can. Too cowardly I presume.

I'll attempt to explain to you why it matters one last time. If it's just descriptive you're simply calling whatever is left the result of natural selection. This is AFTER the fact and there is no way to determine that this result should be favoured by these specific environmental pressures. If you could witness multiple universes in action you could witness different outcomes for exactly the same conditions in which case neither is the result of natural selection. As it happens you are just describing one outcome as the result of natural selection.!

Incoherent. English please.

Even if it's not completely by chance it's still like describing the flow of water through a stream. In hindsight it's easy to see where it is flowing but you wouldn't want to build your house downstream from a nearby dam as you have no way to predict its exact flow. In the same way environmental pressures can't accurately be claimed the cause of a specific result as they are unpredictable. It would be more accurate to say it's the result of enviromental pressure (singular) as a whole but not necessarily a repeatable result for repeatable conditions.!

Incoherent.

Why does it matter? If it's used proscriptively like Darwinian evolution it becomes the cause for mutation or a mechanism like it is listed in the OP but few (if any) biologists have this view. It's almost universally seen as descriptive iow not a mechanism in which case Endler calls out a "surprising lack of hard evidence" that it results in any evolution. So descriptively it's weak evidence even for support of evolution itself.!

Incoherent.

Similarly Dr. Purdom has put forth that there are as yet no discovered truelly beneficial mutations. A mutation that makes bacteria antibiotic resistant makes it weak when the antibiotic is removed. Evolution only changes it's fitness for the environment but has never resulted in a clearly marked overall improved fitness level or iow the addition of information.!

Resistance to antibiotics IS a an improvement in fitness regardless of what to to blithering idiot at answersingenesis. The fact that many improvement came at the cost of others in no secret.

Darwin's finches are not undergoing any net-evolution. Their beaks are changing back and forth. That is adaptation which is very much science but it is a creationist concept taught for ages already that Darwin hijacked. Your "science" is therefor not the only science.!

"net-evoltion"? Is this another creationist moronic buzz word?

What the OP now seems to want is one objection for 5 very broad concepts (not necessarily mechanisms) which is not reasonable. Many objections have been raised all through this thread. Just because he, you, and so many others close your ears to this does not mean the questions were not answered. They were. Saying otherwise is like not being able to look past the sapling to see the forest.!

No objections has been laid. Stop lying.

Too simple in fact. In addition there are many factual errors on lions, antelope, peacocks and the fact that what actually causes speciation is still being hotly debated. The problems with your articles have been pointed out to you and you were asked to give your own explanation of how you see it. Instead you give some random quote of Dawkins that only people who don't understand evolution reject it which seems rather disingenuous in the context. And please remove those provocative labels from the thread.!

Incorrect.

Hmmm... now read that again and see who constantly does exactly that yet we don't keep throwing insults at them. Then go and read who consistently in every thread keeps throwing the first low blows. It speaks of low moral character and it's doing more for our cause than you could ever know. Deal with that!

If stupid arguments are not pointed out those making stupid argument will never improve.