Evolution; A challenge.

[porchrat]

So wait... is Phrony saying that the environment doesn't apply pressures in various forms to organisms leading to some surviving long enough to reproduce and others not?

If the answers to that is "no" then I still don't see the point of the argument.

 

[copacetic]

Objection 1: Natural selection is not a mechanism.

Here is what the article says about natural selection, and it makes sense to me:

Here is how Natural Selection works:
1. More organisms are born than can survive.

2. Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents. Every batch of offspring contains a natural range of genetic variation. Genetic variation is produced in several ways, as discussed below. Changes in the genetic code, most of the time, are either harmful to an organism or neutral to it. However, there are rare instances where such changes can be helpful to the survival of an organism. Changes in the genetics of a species can bring about physical changes which give a survival advantage to the species, allowing it to continue when other species cannot.

3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die. The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey is so swift and elusive. (Because any slow and weak lions would not be able to survive long enough to reproduce). The reason antelopes are so swift and elusive is because lions are so fast and powerful. (Because any slow antelopes, and any that lack the instinct to run in a zig-zag pattern, would not survive long enough to reproduce.) There are other types of selective forces: climate changes and food supply changes will eliminate any organisms which aren't well suited for survival; sexual selection is the reason male peacocks have enormous tail feathers, and why deer and moose have huge antlers-- peacocks with small feathers and moose with little antlers don't get to mate with the females. Selective pressure is any factor that makes it hard for some organisms to continue surviving, and rewards any advantage that some organisms may have been born with.

4. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations, which give survival enhancements, bring about new species. Thousands of generations of small changes result in a species that can look very different from the one that it came from.

NOTE: Species evolve-- individual organisms do not. Creatures don't "change" from one thing into another... they remain as they were born. Organisms do not choose to evolve-- favorable traits are chosen by the survival of the creature; less efficient characteristics are eliminated by the deaths of organisms. Within a species, there is a predictable range of possible traits, and a guaranteed chance of random mutations. Any trait that provides a survival advantage is preserved into the next generation, but a trait that is harmful to an individual results in the death of that individual.

Objection 2: Natural selection is not a force or a cause

Could the OP please clarify (in his own words) his own understanding of the concept of natural selection?

It is unclear whether the OP thinks natural selection is a prescriptive or descriptive term and how his concept of "mechanism" is related to his view of natural selection. Please clear this up for us.

I refer again to the article.

I'm a bit unclear on what your objection is actually. I was under the impression you accepted evolution, which would make me wonder why you are involved in this thread, as I made it clear enough that this is aimed at those who reject evolution.

As is, it appears that the OP is using natural selection in a prescriptive manner and the concept of mechanism is used in the sense that natural selection is a "causally active" mechanism as if it is some cause or force and not just some descriptive term or descriptive mechanism like "erosion".
And, as pointed out, such a view is dubious at best.

As far as I can tell, per the article:

Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die

... is that 'causally active' (whatever that even means....)? It seems about the same as erosion, a descriptive word.

 

[alloytoo]

... is that 'causally active' (whatever that even means....)? It seems about the same as erosion, a descriptive word.

An excellent example. A host of varying unguided factors described by their cumulative result.

Perhaps we should start small with a "Selection 101" thread, though frankly the "Natural selection does nothing" statement while technically true is just as disingenuous, and as helpful as the perenial "How does an organism choose to change?" & "It's just a theory."

It's worth also noting that not all selection is unguided. Artificial selection accounts for many features which might also be considered contra-survival.

 

[Anony]

Perhaps we should start small with a "Selection 101" thread

A most excellent idea! Judging from this thread, such a thread is sorely needed.

 

[Anony]

The theory of evolution does not discredit or even have anything to do with the existence of a creator.

Unfortunately for those who vehemently believe and discuss their religion, the theory of evolution steps on the toes of many aspects of their religion.

Big difference in only believing in the existence of a creator and leaving it at that versus facing East every day and praying because some dude said you must or expressing absolute love for this creator you don't even know above your own spouse.

Organized religion, I don't like :/ Do not want!

Posts like these, which are of course as a result of the OP, should be in PD. Just another reason why this thread shouldn't be here.

 

[Akima]

Very interesting thread this thanks OP. I really should get more into this.

+1

 

[copacetic]

Context from other thread:

*snip*

Apologies for thinking you were a YEC.

Just for my own clarification, how old is the universe?

I'm saddened that you are not able to respond to that thread, you have always struck me as having an interest in knowledge, even if we tend to disagree on much.

You will not have to do any research, if your reasons for rejecting evolution are sensible, as you can easily just respond to the questions with the very knowledge that causes you to reject it in the first place. Obviously, I don't believe you have the correct knowledge in this regard, which is why I made the thread, and your reluctance (and everyone else's) to answer those 8 questions, forces me to conclude I was quite right.

Which is no surprise, although somewhat disappointing. I was hoping there was at least some sort of substance behind the vociferous nature of the objections to evolution.

What in your opinion is the single most important problem creationists have with evolution?

That to a creationist, evolution cannot be true, not because the evidence says so, but because their faith based belief system dictates that no matter what, they must reject it.

Hence this thread. The article clearly lays out basics of evolution, as well as linking to loads of evidence. If those 8 questions cannot be answered, then you are admitting your rejection of evolution is faith based and utterly non-scientific.

Which is perfectly fine, but let's call a spade a spade then. If I'm wrong about this, then it follows that answering those 8 questions will be as easy as pie.

 

[Nod]

Why do people care so much about this topic? Are you going to live so long that it matters? Unless you are a scientist, working with this topic every day, it really does not make any difference to the average human being, whether we evolved from apes, or not. The average person just want to get on with his boring live, and retire comfortably with a nice beer in his hand.

 

[copacetic]

Why do people care so much about this topic? Are you going to live so long that it matters? Unless you are a scientist, working with this topic every day, it really does not make any difference to the average human being, whether we evolved from apes, or not. The average person just want to get on with his boring live, and retire comfortably with a nice beer in his hand.

I care because knowledge is power, and ignorance is dangerous.

The fact that you seem to think we evolved from apes shows which side you've planted yourself on.

 

[Nod]

I care because knowledge is power, and ignorance is dangerous.

The fact that you seem to think we evolved from apes shows which side you've planted yourself on.

So what knowledge do you gain from this? Does it make you a better person in some way?
No, it just shows how much I care about what the latest state of the evolution theory is. Just did a google, seems you will have to correct wikipedia.

 

[copacetic]

So what knowledge do you gain from this?

I find your attitude quite baffling, to be honest. Evolution is the theory that underpins all of modern biology, and as such is a fairly important part of understanding the natural world.

I'm at a loss as to how to respond actually. Are you not interested in the cosmos? The fact that stars explode and forge the elements from which we are all constituted, in a vast nuclear furnace! Or would you also consider this pointless knowledge to have?

Does it make you a better person in some way?

Yes it does, most definitely.

No, it just shows how much I care about what the latest state of the evolution theory is.

What it shows is that you are wilfully ignorant about the world around you. Which is of course your choice. The fact that you seem to think other people should also find this knowledge pointless is most depressing.

 

[copacetic]

Just did a google, seems you will have to correct wikipedia.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

.

 

[scotty777]

Natural Selection: Irrelevant... The most unlucky dies, or if you sick/weak... If you wearing good Jeans it might help though.


Genetic Drift: God realizes that maybe that gene wasn't the best idea, and obviously trials it first, giving it some time, removing it slowly.

Mutation: It's not really mutation, God sometimes gets the creative itch is all

Recombination: It's sorta like the above, sometimes God decides to make small changes here and there but realizes he can do it by just reordering things... It's like reusing some programming code, so it can do something else... Just like using libraries and what not. Only, he just reorders things to make a new output, testing really.

Gene Flow: Sometimes God thinks one population needs a little of this populations good stuff, so to make the processes easier, he just lets the mixing of the ones genes with the others etc.

playing devils advocate!

 

[copacetic]

/\

Are you drunk?

 

[scotty777]

/\

Are you drunk?

Why do you ask?

 

[copacetic]

Why do you ask?

I didn't really understand anything you wrote.

It could be me though.

 

[scotty777]

I didn't really understand anything you wrote.

It could be me though.

Sorry , I am retarded at times. Sorry, do carry on, ignore my input if that's alright. I also seem to be a failure at life too!

 

[SanchoP]

Well so far this thread has basically proved its point. Well done copa. Although at least scotty777 had a little stab at it...

 

[copacetic]

Well so far this thread has basically proved its point. Well done copa. Although at least scotty777 had a little stab at it...

h0ll0w as well.

To tell you the truth, I'm really a bit disappointed. I honestly thought the people violently opposed to evolution would have some way to articulate those views, in light of the questions posed.

 

[porchrat]

h0ll0w as well.

To tell you the truth, I'm really a bit disappointed. I honestly thought the people violently opposed to evolution would have some way to articulate those views, in light of the questions posed.

Dude over the years in here you've seen people who oppose evolution come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas, "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" and "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" being just 2 in a practically infinite list of stupid.

Look at Ekstasis trying to tell us that Intelligent Design is a scientific endeavor. That was so embarrassing I don't even have words to adequately express how bad I felt for the poor guy.

Why would you think that those sorts of people would actually suddenly come up with rational reasons for their continued inability to accept evolution as the most likely explanation of how we all got here.