Evolution; A challenge.

[h0ll0w]

What are you meaning by this exactly?

Tell me you are joking ?

Please read this:
...
Like all natural processes, evolution is guided by laws that do not change. If you throw a rock up in the air, its path is not governed by pure chance, but by the law of gravity. It cannot fly off randomly in any direction, but will travel in a parabolic arc and land at a predictable point. If you put a hot object next to a cold one, the transfer of heat is not governed by pure chance, but by the laws of thermodynamics. Heat cannot flow randomly in either direction; it will move consistently from the hotter object to the colder one. And if you set a population of randomly mutating organisms in an environment, their future is not drifting at the whim of chance, but is directed by the law of natural selection.
...

To compare natural selection to gravity is just stupid. It has already been stated at the beginning of this thread, that natural selection is a term that retrospectively describes events that eliminate or filter certain traits/characteristics. It is not a force or agent like gravity is. Your first article actually says the same thing. Therefore it cannot direct the future of anything.

In any case, evolution is an observed fact.

I'll quote the YEC website for you again. It does not matter that it's from a YEC website, this strictly deals with your "observed evolution"

With cases of speciation the conclusion is clear if following observational science. Speciation will not produce radical biological structure dissimilarity resulting in a different animal, such is needed to support molecules-to-man evolution, but rather deeply unique and wide-ranging phenotype diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.
Beyond phenotype expression, any other conclusion will not suffice but rely on extrapolation that assumes deep time.

 

[porchrat]

See, this is the problem if you can't explain things in your own words and provide links.

What, in your mind, is the difference between natural selection and evolution?

Let's use the analogy of erosion and ask the following questions for both natural selection and erosion:
1) Is erosion a prescriptive or descriptive term?
2) Is erosion a mechanism?
3) Is erosion a cause or a force?
4) Is erosion a process or an outcome?

Answers

1) Is erosion a prescriptive or descriptive term?
A descriptive term that describes what happens when you have, say for example, water flowing through a river.

2) Is erosion a mechanism?
No, not in any causal manner anyway, at best merely descriptive. The mechanism by which things erode are described via their physical interactions of various physical substances.

3) Is erosion a cause or a force?
Neither. The causes of erosion are to be found in the things that interact with each other.

4) Is erosion a process or an outcome?
An outcome of various efficient causes.

I have some other questions:
5) Does erosion result in the wearing down of rocks regardless of philosophical phronisms surrounding it?
6) If the answer to question 5 is yes then why do the philosophical phronisms actually matter if they have no impact whatsoever on the end result and what actually happens in erosion?

Answers

5) Yes.
6) They don't matter.

 

[Techne]

Does evolution result in organisms with fitness differences?
Does natural selection result in organisms with fitness differences?

If the answer to both are yes, explain the differences between the two concepts as you understand it.

Do things evolve by natural selection?
Do things erode by erosion?

What, in your mind, do you understand to be the differences between the process of natural selection and the process of evolution.

Please don't try to bait and goad others, just give a normal, civil answer.

 

[Bobbin]

BTW Natural selection is an invisible and unmeasurable concept. So on what basis was it defined?

I would be happy to try show you how in my mind I solve the problem of seeing how NS fits perfectly.

Name one creature with one feature that you don't quite see how it could be shaped by NS. Obviously not something as advanced as an organ although those usually crop up first and have been pretty much answered already but are way beyond simple discussion - I could try answer those as well but please it always comes first and is boring by now plus it gives me a headache. But come just name me one adapted feature of any creature and I will see what I can do in simple terms and my laymans understanding to show you how it would have developed over time by simple Natural Selection. If I don't come right I am sure someone more clued up can...

Camouflage to conceal a hunter or prey.
Defense or attack mechanisms.
Development of sensory perception and different sensory mechanisms.
Prey or food preference and adaptation to eat those.
Physical ability (flight, speed, adapted eyesight, thumbs etc...)
Any behavioral and/or instinctual mechanisms/activities.
Intelligence and/or social development/enhancement.
Purpose and impact of mating signals and/or selective breeding.
Communication.

Notwithstanding the amount of physical defects and the sheer spread of differences in any one species alone particularly as they get more advanced.

Tell me where it is going wrong for you. Please do.

 

[h0ll0w]

I have some other questions:
5) Does erosion result in the wearing down of rocks regardless of philosophical phronisms surrounding it?
6) If the answer to question 5 is yes then why do the philosophical phronisms actually matter if they have no impact whatsoever on the end result and what actually happens in erosion?

Answers

5) Yes.
6) They don't matter.

If I didn't know a little about you through your postings, I would say you are deliberately obfuscating.

The distinction is clear and significant indeed, but it doesn't fit into your world view. You still haven't even tried to show that you posses any in-depth knowledge of evolution.

 

[Bobbin]

Does evolution result in organisms with fitness differences?
Does natural selection result in organisms with fitness differences?

If the answer to both are yes, explain the differences between the two concepts as you understand it.

Do things evolve by natural selection?
Do things erode by erosion?

What, in your mind, do you understand to be the differences between the process of natural selection and the process of evolution.

Please don't try to bait and goad others, just give a normal, civil answer.

OK I will bite if I may. In my opinion, yes to both but you are comparing a component to the whole so in a sense you are practically asking the same question twice.

Do things evolve by natural selection? - NS isn't a driver it is more of a filter in a way. So I hope you are not looking at it wrong.
Do things erode by erosion? - I thought that is what erosion means

Difference between NS and ToE? Once again this is like comparing a component to a whole so I don't see how differences can be formed let alone have any baring on the whole thing.

 

[Techne]

Bobbin, fitness differences over time explain how traits become prevalent (per accidens causes). They do not explain what things are or why they have a specific function (per se causes).

BTW, I see you are a fan of naturalism. The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions is a definite must read for you (and anyone else really, whether you are an atheist, a theist, agnostic or just plain human). Rosenberg is a prominent philosopher of science and philosopher of biology. Rosenberg appears to be intellectually honest and is refreshingly and brutally consistent in his book about his position (Naturalism and Scientism) and its consequences.

A thoroughly enjoyable read. You can also see him in an interview here.

 

[h0ll0w]

I would be happy to try show you how in my mind I solve the problem of seeing how NS fits perfectly.

Name one creature with one feature that you don't quite see how it could be shaped by NS. Obviously not something as advanced as an organ although those usually crop up first and have been pretty much answered already but are way beyond simple discussion - I could try answer those as well but please it always comes first and is boring by now plus it gives me a headache. But come just name me one adapted feature of any creature and I will see what I can do in simple terms and my laymans understanding to show you how it would have developed over time by simple Natural Selection. If I don't come right I am sure someone more clued up can...

Camouflage to conceal a hunter or prey.
Defense or attack mechanisms.
Development of sensory perception and different sensory mechanisms.
Prey or food preference and adaptation to eat those.
Physical ability (flight, speed, adapted eyesight, thumbs etc...)
Any behavioral and/or instinctual mechanisms/activities.
Intelligence and/or social development/enhancement.
Purpose and impact of mating signals and/or selective breeding.
Communication.

Notwithstanding the amount of physical defects and the sheer spread of differences in any one species alone particularly as they get more advanced.

Tell me where it is going wrong for you. Please do.

Bobbin, although your posts sometimes frustrate me just as much as other people's, I have respect for you for addressing an problem in a straightforward manner. I don't even really know why

I also happen to think you are more familiar with the finer aspects of your world view than most other posters.

I just can't bring myself to agree with it

 

[Techne]

OK I will bite if I may. In my opinion, yes to both but you are comparing a component to the whole so in a sense you are practically asking the same question twice.

Evolution, in the sense I am using it, merely means "biological change". The ToE is a theory to explain how biological change happens.

Do things evolve by natural selection? - NS isn't a driver it is more of a filter in a way. So I hope you are not looking at it wrong.

In what way is NS a filter? Metaphorically and thus not real? Or do you think it is REALLY a real filter? In what sense then is it real?

Difference between NS and ToE? Once again this is like comparing a component to a whole so I don't see how differences can be formed let alone have any baring on the whole thing.

To be fair, I am not asking the difference between NS and ToE but merely NS and evolution i.e. biological change.

 

[Bobbin]

Bobbin, fitness differences over time explain how traits become prevalent (per accidens causes). They do not explain what they are or why they have a specific function (per se causes).

BTW, I see you are a fan of naturalism. The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions is a definite must read for you (ad anyone else. whether you are an atheist, a theist, agnostic or just plain human). Rosenberg is a prominent philosopher of science and philosopher of biology. Rosenberg appears to be intellectually honest and is refreshingly and brutally consistent in his book about his position (Naturalism and Scientism) and its consequences.

A thoroughly enjoyable read. You can also see him in an interview here.

I would say fitness is a part of physical health, longevity and overall well-being (also a good mating signal no?). Depending on your means of day to day survival though it could either be mostly irrelevant or crucial so it would be favored differently all over. I would have been "filtered" out long ago as a hunter before civilization occured. But now I don't have to be super fit and it seems most of America are not either But OK I think I get you. Maybe I lost where you are coming from though so sorry if I did.

At the moment I "subscribe" to naturalism yes but could change. And thanks

 

[Techne]

Fitness is just the intrinsic genetic potential of a population. This is analogous to propensity views of fitness of a population which is described as "natural dispositions which can be manifested in long term frequencies".
A natural disposition is of course very much in line with Aristotelian teleology and final causality or natural ends.

 

[cyghost]

Please don't try to bait and goad others, just give a normal, civil answer.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Bobbin]

In what way is NS a filter? Metaphorically and thus not real? Or do you think it is REALLY a real filter? In what sense then is it real?

Take two snakes hiding in the brush waiting for prey to amble past.

One snake sticks out like a sore thumb.
One snake is perfectly hidden in plain sight.

Looking way back before this situation we have two directions here that an ordinary snake could have evolved towards. I am pretty sure before the start of those minor changes occurred in this creature Natural Selection would have favored the direction of camouflage right from the onset and continued to do so until that snake was as near perfect as it could possibly be to its environment. Every regression would have been eliminated and every movement towards perfection would have been reinforced. Every regression would have been eliminated faster than any reinforcement as well simply due to survival.

And I am speaking in terms of one snake, but really I mean this change would occur over generations upon generations obviously. And also this is a really basic way of looking at it I am not taking into account many other factors such as how many other directions could have seen a new type of snake start to form and split away. And/or ultimately even a new creature develop.

So in that sense I suppose a filter is the best word I can come up with.

Now, how the change actually starts to occur or what causes the change to spark or happen in the first place is a much more complicated discussion for me.

 

[copacetic]

I surrender. Have fun, you disingenuous ****wits.

 

[h0ll0w]

I surrender. Have fun, you disingenuous ****wits.

Just out of curiosity, being the thread originator did you associate these tags with the thread ? If so you are the disingenuous person here before even a single reply was posted.

 

[porchrat]

If I didn't know a little about you through your postings, I would say you are deliberately obfuscating.

The distinction is clear and significant indeed, but it doesn't fit into your world view.

There is no distinction. Regardless of what you people say here natural selection means stuff either survives to reproduce or it doesn't. What label you decide to put on that collection of environmental pressures is totally irrelevant.

You still haven't even tried to show that you posses any in-depth knowledge of evolution.

Having studied biochemistry for 4 years at university we do passing studies in evolution. I would never put myself forward as some sort of expert though.

You don't need to be an expert to see that this whole natural selection/erosion thing is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Chicken Boo]

You still haven't even tried to show that you posses any in-depth knowledge of evolution.

If I might intrude here, how will his knowledge of the matter change anything? Let's say he scans you his doctorate in Understanding Evolution. And then his degree in Explaining Evolution Via Internet. What changes?

 

[h0ll0w]

What label you decide to put on that collection of environmental pressures is totally irrelevant.
...
yada yada
...
natural selection/erosion thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Until you start labelling erosion or natural selection a force. which it is not therefore it cannot direct or create anything.

If you refuse acknowledge that, you are categorically wrong.

 

[Techne]

snip

Your example demonstrates quite nicely how traits, due to fitness differences, become prevalent over time. Natural selection is not a filter, it is just a description of how traits persist due their fitness differences. Natural selection also does not explain or describe why a certain trait has a certain fitness potential.

 

[h0ll0w]

If I might intrude here, how will his knowledge of the matter change anything? Let's say he scans you his doctorate in Understanding Evolution. And then his degree in Explaining Evolution Via Internet. What changes?

Absolutely nothing, but my problem with this person is that he/she just comes and barges in on a discussion without actually contributing anything to the topic.

Only thing he/she has done was to try and make a problem raised off as semantics, which has been demonstrated to be crucial to the discussion.