|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
backspace
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
 |
|
| Is Natural Selection the mechanism of the Theory of Evolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 10:23 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
It doesn't describe any basic principles. What idiot told you the
sentence did, and why did you believe him? This is a short except from
Darwin's describing how his theory could be falsified.
What theory? Darwin used the phrase "Theory of Evolution" only once |
but he never even specified the problem.
Berlinski came to the conclusion that there is no Theory or Evolution.
A few days ago I listend for the first time to the Crossfire debate of
Berlinski, Ruse, Miller, Johnson, Scott where Berlinski said that
there is no theory of Evolution and that he has been looking for one
for all these years yet nothing.
| Quote: |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3817786,00.html
"... But the operation of natural selection upon random mutation -
Darwin hardly used the word 'evolution' in The Origin Of Species in
1859 - has become an answer to almost everything."
Tim Radford, neither did Darwin use the word "random" hardly at all -
he never used it. From your quote you have just like Harvard psycology
department assumed it was Darwin. "..natural selection upon random
mutation" is supposed to be scientific statement based on some sort of
theory, if you don't tell me who this person is I can't evaluate your
statement - it is not even wrong, it will remain undefined.
Unlike religion, science is expected to build on previous work.
"Science" is not a human hence you can't "expect" anything of it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 3:29 am, "Martin Hutton"
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
He didn't use "random mutation" but rather "variations...which were
due to chance" (Chapters I, II, & V of "Origin" are about variations
and how they are "due to chance"). Once genetics had been identified
as providing the mechanisms for inheritance and then mutations were
found to be the source of variation ((try Dobzhansky's 1937 book
"Genetics and the Origin of Species" which will cite the orignial
papers). "Random (with respect to need)" is pretty much a synonym
of "due to chance".
Darwin didn't use "evolution" (until, IIRC, the 6th edition) because
it was a term used in the homunculus theory of embryonic development,
and implied an "unrolling of a preformed organism from a miniature
one". Darwin objected to the "preformed" connotations of the word,
but with no other single word presented for "speciation by natural
selection of offpring's variations that occur due to chance", he
finally acceded to its use.
Read "Origin" which is "one long argument" to support the above
statement.
Darwin: |
".I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and
multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser
degree with those under nature--were DUE TO CHANCE. This, of course
is a wholly
incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
Your quote implies Darwin somehow embraced "randomness" or "chance
events" but from the passage it is clear he didn't. And Darwin
acknowledged "the ignorance of the cause of each particular
variation". And Greenleaf expressed the same sentiments in Botanical
Gazette 1909 when he termed an egg turning into a human
"microevolution" and said it was a "mystery". The mystery was resolved
with the discovery of genes ofcourse. Evolutionists are engageing in
academic fraud.
Darwin:
"..When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot
tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural
selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of
life."
The conditions of life aren't actions, the organisms genes expresses
itself to adapt to the conditions of life. Darwin is cofusing the
cause with the effect. His statement will also be true in every and
all circumstances. All he had to do is just discover a certain
organism and declare it "adapted", but if was a different organism he
would said exactly the same thing. Thus his statement explains
everything and theories that explain everything explain nothing, their
control of the facts is an illusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 10:04 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
wrote:
| Quote: |
You did ofcourse know that in
Darwins book 'Natural Selection' is equivalent to "Survival of the
Fittest"?
No, actually it isn't equivalent....
Your are factually wrong. Darwin explicitly stated that Natural |
Selection is "Survival of the Fittest" - a phrase so embarrasing that
even Dr. Wilkins himself is confused over it contradicting himself in
his posts over the concept.
| Quote: |
"Differences in reproductive success among genetically-differing
individuals in a population cause adaptive evolutionary change",
on the other hand, seems to say quite a bit.
rephrasing you:"Reproduction among the same species results in |
ofspring that differ from their parents".
This is an observation not theory. And "success" is something a human
achieves after reaching a goal.
An atheist asked the question on http://www.infidels.org by the name
of Dernavich:" If beavers were meant to produce A-frames would we
still call them a success?". I rephrase this to:" If cows were meant
to produce beer instead of milk whould cows still be a "success"."
| Quote: |
There's are whole books that goes into the meaning of
"natural selection" in considerable detail. One was first
published in 1859.
Sure and the detail Darwin provided of Natural Selection was that it |
is "survival of the fittest".....sigh.....
| Quote: |
A theory is an explanation about something, so perhaps a "theory of
natural selection" might explain something about how a phenomenon
called "natural selection" works.
No, a theory is an independant specification of an observation that |
must not restate the actuall observation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 10:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The "fittest" are not those which survive, but those which are best
adapted to the environment.
This in itself was not a new idea, but
coupled with the observation that there is a random pool of
inheritable variation in any generation of a species, Darwin produced
a brilliant and testable model to explain the fossil record and the
current diversity of life.
|
Darwin wrote:"...I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the
variations--so common and
multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser
degree with those under nature--were due to chance. This, of course
is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly
our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. "
Darwin acknowledged plainly his ignorance of the cause of each
particular variation. So where did he provide a "testable model" if he
didn't know about genes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
backspace wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 10:23 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It doesn't describe any basic principles. What idiot told you the
sentence did, and why did you believe him? This is a short except from
Darwin's describing how his theory could be falsified.
What theory? Darwin used the phrase "Theory of Evolution" only once
but he never even specified the problem.
Berlinski came to the conclusion that there is no Theory or Evolution.
A few days ago I listend for the first time to the Crossfire debate of
Berlinski, Ruse, Miller, Johnson, Scott where Berlinski said that
there is no theory of Evolution and that he has been looking for one
for all these years yet nothing.
|
Well, if Berlinski says there is no theory, he must be right. Any
Fellow of the Discovery Institute, especially one as fascinated
by astrology as he is, must be right when he says there is no
theory. He oughta recognize no-theory when he sees none, by jiggers!
<snip> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 7:24 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 3, 3:29 am, "Martin Hutton"
mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
He didn't use "random mutation" but rather "variations...which were
due to chance" (Chapters I, II, & V of "Origin" are about variations
and how they are "due to chance"). Once genetics had been identified
as providing the mechanisms for inheritance and then mutations were
found to be the source of variation ((try Dobzhansky's 1937 book
"Genetics and the Origin of Species" which will cite the orignial
papers). "Random (with respect to need)" is pretty much a synonym
of "due to chance".
Darwin didn't use "evolution" (until, IIRC, the 6th edition) because
it was a term used in the homunculus theory of embryonic development,
and implied an "unrolling of a preformed organism from a miniature
one". Darwin objected to the "preformed" connotations of the word,
but with no other single word presented for "speciation by natural
selection of offpring's variations that occur due to chance", he
finally acceded to its use.
Read "Origin" which is "one long argument" to support the above
statement.
Darwin:
".I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations--so common and
multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser
degree with those under nature--were DUE TO CHANCE. This, of course
is a wholly
incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."
Your quote implies Darwin somehow embraced "randomness" or "chance
events" but from the passage it is clear he didn't.
|
He didn't know how variation arose, but observed that it existed. He
may have had reservations about such variation being purely random,
but subsequent discoveries in genetic showed that he was wrong.
Moreover, he identified this lack of a mechanism to produce variation
and preserve beneficial changes in populations as the biggest gap in
his theory. That's why the term the "modern synthesis" was coined to
represent the combination of natural selection and genetics in
evolutionary theory.
| Quote: |
And Darwin
acknowledged "the ignorance of the cause of each particular
variation".
|
Quite so. He was an honest scientist. Most scientists are when it
comes to science.
As a creationist you are evidently unfamiliar with the idea of
honesty.
| Quote: |
And Greenleaf expressed the same sentiments in Botanical
Gazette 1909 when he termed an egg turning into a human
"microevolution" and said it was a "mystery". The mystery was resolved
with the discovery of genes ofcourse.
|
That had nothing whatsoever to do with the way Greenleaf used the
term! As has been pointed out on several occasions, Greenleaf's use of
the term 'microevolution' did not catch on, and in the sense we have
used the term for the last 80 years or so it refers to small-scale
evolutionary changes, not ontogeny.
| Quote: |
Evolutionists are engageing in
academic fraud.
|
Creationists are fundamentally dishonest, and I can support that
assertion with strong evidence.
Unless you can provide evidence for your assertion, you are engaging
in the act of bearing false witness.
Why don't you produce evidence of fraud on the part of "evolutionists"
or withdraw your assertion? To do anything else exposes you as a liar.
RF
| Quote: |
Darwin:
"..When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot
tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural
selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of
life."
The conditions of life aren't actions, the organisms genes expresses
itself to adapt to the conditions of life. Darwin is cofusing the
cause with the effect. His statement will also be true in every and
all circumstances. All he had to do is just discover a certain
organism and declare it "adapted", but if was a different organism he
would said exactly the same thing. Thus his statement explains
everything and theories that explain everything explain nothing, their
control of the facts is an illusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:53:29 -0700, backspace wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 10:23 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It doesn't describe any basic principles. What idiot told you the
sentence did, and why did you believe him? This is a short except from
Darwin's describing how his theory could be falsified.
What theory? Darwin used the phrase "Theory of Evolution" only once
|
So what? The Formula 1 Rules do not mention even once, that the cars
must use an Internal Combustion Engine.
Please feel free to have a wild guess as to what type of engine the cars
actually use.
Please also feel free to elaborate as to why Bernie Ecclestone should
take you seriously when you tell him that Internal Combustion Engines in
F1 cars are against the rules.
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 3, 9:23 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180891704.724211.169940@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 4:36 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Darwin never said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is
"Survival of the Fittest". That phrase was used by Herbert Spencer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Darwin got the phrase from Spencer and used it 16 times in Origin of
Species:
But then he never used it in the first edition, which of course is the
_only_ authoritative one, according to your own professed standards.
You should ignore the 5th and later editions which are the only ones
to use it.
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient..."
Darwin says SurvivalFittest is more "accurate"
And we're free to disagree a bit with that assessment of "SOTF",
and to say that
"Differential reproductive success"
or
"Differences in genetic traits producing differing phenotypes which
have an influence an individual's chances of reproduction in its
environment"
are somewhat more useful sentence fragments. But it's still not a
complete statement of anything. What exactly does this "differential
reproductive success", etc., actually _do_?
How about:
"The individual organisms in a population vary in their phenotypic
characteristics.
Some of this phenotypic variation has a heritable, genetic basis.
Some of this heritable variation has some influence on an individual's
likelihood of survival and reproduction in its particular environment,
compared to the other individuals of its population.
Any heritable variations that tend to increase an individual's
relative ability to reproduce will tend to increase in frequency in
future generations of the population.
All genetic variations that tend to decrease an individual's relative
reproductive success will tend to decrease in frequency over
generations.
This basic principle is called 'natural selection', and it explains
both changes of the population to become better adapted to its
environment ['evolution by natural selection'] and also the
preservation of existing adaptive traits by the continual elimination
of all new variations that are less well adapted.
Evolution by natural selection is the process that explains the origin
of the many features by which different organisms are observed to be
so well adapted to their particular environments and ways of life."
There. The above seems to me to be a fairly complete brief statment
of what "natural selection" is all about. Feel free to explain how
it's just an empty "tautology" like saying,"the red things are the
ones that are red in color". If you do say it's "tautologous", does
that mean you concede that the above statement is so obviously true
that it doesn't even bear discussion?
cheers
|
If I say:"You have a green light", what does it mean? It could mean
you are holding a green light bulb, or you have a green traffic light.
If you don't tell me what you mean by it the sentence is meaningless.
In the same way if you don't
define for "Natural Selection" and who established it as some sort of
scientific law your whole paragraph means nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
James Norris
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 2, 5:33?pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 5:19 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
In anycase it seems that Morgan first used the term 'random mutations'
in 1910,1920http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-secret-handshake/#commen...
Darwin never used the term random mutation. That was the product of
the research by Morgan in the 1910's and 1920's which along with
Mendelian genetics formed the basis of the modern synthesis in the
late 1930's, early 1940's. Darwin, I beliieve used the term
spontaneous variations.
So Darwin basically said the same things with a different terminology.
What is your point?
We first need to see what Darwin said:"..Lamarck, who believed in an
innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic
beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led
to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by
Spontaneous Generation." Spontaneous Generation only appears once.
And Darwin interpreting Larmarck again:"...But he likewise believed in
a law of progressive development, and as all the forms of life thus
tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present
day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now
spontaneously generated. " Spontaneously Generated appears once.
Do you dispute that sometimes a single mutation can cause a large
change?
That depends what you mean by the word "mutation".
|
But what is your point? Aren't you just quibbling about definitions?
On Jun 3, 6:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 3, 4:36 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:57 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:> In article <1180781938.794022.203...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes:
Is Natural Selection the mechanism of the Theory of Evolution?
No, it's "a" mechanism of the theory of evolution.
And Darwin said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is "Survival
of the Fittest". So in other words "what survives survives" is the
mechanims of the Theory of Evolution? You did ofcourse know that in
Darwins book 'Natural Selection' is equivalent to "Survival of the
Fittest"? If you reject "Sur Fittest" as an obvious tautology then you
reject Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection". Because just stateing
"Natural Selection" is meaningless if the author don't tell us what he
means by it. So I am asking you: Who's version of Natural Selection
are you using because you haven't defined for me what you mean by
"Natural Selection"?
Darwin never said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is
"Survival of the Fittest". That phrase was used by Herbert Spencer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Darwin got the phrase from Spencer and used it 16 times in Origin of
Species:
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient..."
Darwin says SurvivalFittest is more "accurate"
"..ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE SURVIVAL
OF THE
FITTEST. In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural
selection acts, I must
beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Here's an example of how natural selection might act as a mechanism
for evolution:
Conjoined twins occur naturally in our species, and sometimes twins
are born with two heads sharing one body. If pairs of these two-
headed beings mated, their offspring would tend to also have multiple
heads. On the basis that 'two heads are better than one', it might be
the case that multi-headed humans are better equipped to survive and
reproduce than people with only one head, and if this were the case,
all humans would eventually be born with multiple heads. Two-headed
humans could be innately better at problem-solving for example, though
they might have difficulty resolving arguments, so of all the multi-
headed possibilities, three-headed humans are perhaps the most likely
to evolve as the dominate intelligent species on our planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 4, 9:07 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 2, 5:33?pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:19 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
In anycase it seems that Morgan first used the term 'random mutations'
in 1910,1920http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-secret-handshake/#commen...
Darwin never used the term random mutation. That was the product of
the research by Morgan in the 1910's and 1920's which along with
Mendelian genetics formed the basis of the modern synthesis in the
late 1930's, early 1940's. Darwin, I beliieve used the term
spontaneous variations.
So Darwin basically said the same things with a different terminology.
What is your point?
We first need to see what Darwin said:"..Lamarck, who believed in an
innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic
beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led
to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by
Spontaneous Generation." Spontaneous Generation only appears once.
And Darwin interpreting Larmarck again:"...But he likewise believed in
a law of progressive development, and as all the forms of life thus
tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present
day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now
spontaneously generated. " Spontaneously Generated appears once.
Do you dispute that sometimes a single mutation can cause a large
change?
That depends what you mean by the word "mutation".
But what is your point? Aren't you just quibbling about definitions?
On Jun 3, 6:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:36 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:57 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:> In article <1180781938.794022.203...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes:
Is Natural Selection the mechanism of the Theory of Evolution?
No, it's "a" mechanism of the theory of evolution.
And Darwin said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is "Survival
of the Fittest". So in other words "what survives survives" is the
mechanims of the Theory of Evolution? You did ofcourse know that in
Darwins book 'Natural Selection' is equivalent to "Survival of the
Fittest"? If you reject "Sur Fittest" as an obvious tautology then you
reject Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection". Because just stateing
"Natural Selection" is meaningless if the author don't tell us what he
means by it. So I am asking you: Who's version of Natural Selection
are you using because you haven't defined for me what you mean by
"Natural Selection"?
Darwin never said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is
"Survival of the Fittest". That phrase was used by Herbert Spencer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Darwin got the phrase from Spencer and used it 16 times in Origin of
Species:
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient..."
Darwin says SurvivalFittest is more "accurate"
"..ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE SURVIVAL
OF THE
FITTEST. In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural
selection acts, I must
beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Here's an example of how natural selection might act as a mechanism
for evolution:
Conjoined twins occur naturally in our species, and sometimes twins
are born with two heads sharing one body. If pairs of these two-
headed beings mated, their offspring would tend to also have multiple
heads. On the basis that 'two heads are better than one', it might be
the case that multi-headed humans are better equipped to survive and
reproduce than people with only one head, and if this were the case,
all humans would eventually be born with multiple heads. Two-headed
humans could be innately better at problem-solving for example, though
they might have difficulty resolving arguments, so of all the multi-
headed possibilities, three-headed humans are perhaps the most likely
to evolve as the dominate intelligent species on our planet.
|
I would have no idea since you haven't defined "Natural Selection" for
me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 4, 8:30 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 4, 9:07 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:33?pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:19 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
In anycase it seems that Morgan first used the term 'random mutations'
in 1910,1920http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-secret-handshake/#commen...
Darwin never used the term random mutation. That was the product of
the research by Morgan in the 1910's and 1920's which along with
Mendelian genetics formed the basis of the modern synthesis in the
late 1930's, early 1940's. Darwin, I beliieve used the term
spontaneous variations.
So Darwin basically said the same things with a different terminology.
What is your point?
We first need to see what Darwin said:"..Lamarck, who believed in an
innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic
beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly that he was led
to suppose that new and simple forms are continually being produced by
Spontaneous Generation." Spontaneous Generation only appears once.
And Darwin interpreting Larmarck again:"...But he likewise believed in
a law of progressive development, and as all the forms of life thus
tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present
day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now
spontaneously generated. " Spontaneously Generated appears once.
Do you dispute that sometimes a single mutation can cause a large
change?
That depends what you mean by the word "mutation".
But what is your point? Aren't you just quibbling about definitions?
On Jun 3, 6:28 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:36 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:00 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:57 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:> In article <1180781938.794022.203...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes:
Is Natural Selection the mechanism of the Theory of Evolution?
No, it's "a" mechanism of the theory of evolution.
And Darwin said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is "Survival
of the Fittest". So in other words "what survives survives" is the
mechanims of the Theory of Evolution? You did ofcourse know that in
Darwins book 'Natural Selection' is equivalent to "Survival of the
Fittest"? If you reject "Sur Fittest" as an obvious tautology then you
reject Darwin's phrase "Natural Selection". Because just stateing
"Natural Selection" is meaningless if the author don't tell us what he
means by it. So I am asking you: Who's version of Natural Selection
are you using because you haven't defined for me what you mean by
"Natural Selection"?
Darwin never said that what he meant by "Natural Selection" is
"Survival of the Fittest". That phrase was used by Herbert Spencer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Darwin got the phrase from Spencer and used it 16 times in Origin of
Species:
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient..."
Darwin says SurvivalFittest is more "accurate"
"..ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE SURVIVAL
OF THE
FITTEST. In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural
selection acts, I must
beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Here's an example of how natural selection might act as a mechanism
for evolution:
Conjoined twins occur naturally in our species, and sometimes twins
are born with two heads sharing one body. If pairs of these two-
headed beings mated, their offspring would tend to also have multiple
heads. On the basis that 'two heads are better than one', it might be
the case that multi-headed humans are better equipped to survive and
reproduce than people with only one head, and if this were the case,
all humans would eventually be born with multiple heads. Two-headed
humans could be innately better at problem-solving for example, though
they might have difficulty resolving arguments, so of all the multi-
headed possibilities, three-headed humans are perhaps the most likely
to evolve as the dominate intelligent species on our planet.
I would have no idea since you haven't defined "Natural Selection" for
me.
|
He doesn't need to.
Darwin did in 1859.
I gave you the reference.
Didn't you read it?
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
backspace
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 10, 8:22 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu>
wrote:
| Quote: |
So by the way has
anybody yet figured out what is the Theory of Microevolution - and
don't tell me it is changes in allele frequencies ok.
There really isn't any separate "theory of microevolution". There
doesn't have to be one.
But this UK university http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~apb/evol-course/provides |
a course in Micro Evolutionary theory. Are they confused perhaps? They
state:"...This course develops a theory of micro-evolution and Genetic
Algorithms"
I have been at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ site and he
seems to be pretty worked up over creationists and ID. My suggestion
to Miller is to rather define his terms, if you clarify what is the
difference between "Theory of Evolution" and Evolution then perhaps we
can resolve this debate. The issue Dr.Miller is not creationism the
issue is that you must use the English language in a consistent manner
and make certain that all your sentences has Semantics, Grammar,
Syntax and Pragmatics. Especially the last one - Pragmatics is
extremely important. If you don't know what you mean by "Theory of
Evolution" how am I to know when reading your work?
| Quote: |
And like it or not, change in allele frequency in a population over
generations is indeed "evolution" and yes, it is "microevolution" if
it doesn't involve speciation.
Wether I like it or not is besides the point. I want to know who |
established this. I presume you didn't actually establish this, so who
are you quoting then?
| Quote: |
Lots of people have explained to you what "natural selection" means.
Kenneth Miller didn't invent the term. Are you giving up on your
pretense that only the original author's original definition counts?
Anybody can tell you what the phrase means: it's the scientific theory
that explains how and why "natural selection" happens and what it does.
What is the difference between "Natural Selection" and "Theory of |
Natural Selection"?
Are you saying that the phrase consisting of two words "natural" and
"Selection" combined together for "Natural Selection" is in and of
itself the scientific theory that explains why "Natural Selection"
happens?
What do mean by "Natural Selection" what is your intent or pragmatics
whith your statement. I can't think for you or define your terms , you
use the phrase thus you must define it for me by refering to an
external webpage. I will bookmark it on my wiki together with your
name so that when you use the word "Evolution" I know what is your
pragmatics - presently you yourself don't seem to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 11, 6:32 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 5:38 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu
wrote:
"backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181556960.673574.153750@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 8:22 pm, "mel turner" <mtur...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu
wrote:
So by the way has
anybody yet figured out what is the Theory of Microevolution - and
don't tell me it is changes in allele frequencies ok.
There really isn't any separate "theory of microevolution". There
doesn't have to be one.
But this UK university
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~apb/evol-course/provides
a course in Micro Evolutionary theory. Are they confused perhaps?
Not really. "Microevolutionary theory" would simply be the same as
"Evolutionary Theory", minus all of the parts about macroevolution.
Says who, what is you reference who are you quoting other than
yourself?
Evolution is a biological phenomenon.
The statement has no pragmatics - I don't know what you mean.
|
Which part do you not understand? It consists of words you can look up
in any dictionary put together in a gramatically coherent form.
If you operate on the basis that nobody has any pragmatic competence,
that all communication is impossible.
Why do you think that your inablity to comprehend renders any aspect
of any science invalid?
By the way, your statement that "The statement has no pragmatics"
shows that your ablity to construct gramatically coherent sentences is
poor. Pragmatics is a field of study, not a property of the structure
of a sentence.
Do you actually know what "pragmatics" means, or are you simply
regurgitating words whose meaning you don't understand in the pretence
that you are offering a coherent argument?
Don't bother to answer: it's a rhetorical question.
| Quote: |
What do
we mean by "biological"? Do we mean the genes as a language or do we
mean it in the same context Darwin viewed biology.
And like it or not, change in allele frequency in a population over
generations is indeed "evolution" and yes, it is "microevolution" if
it doesn't involve speciation.
Wether I like it or not is besides the point. I want to know who
established this.
Why? It's established. The who and when are historical questions,
not scientific ones.
Thus says you, it would be very strange if nobody could tell me who
says that for every action there is a reaction, that I am just
supposed to believe it.
|
If someone told you that they would be misquoting Newton's Law of
motion which states that for every action there is an *equal and
opposite* reaction.
Of course, Newton's Laws don't give a full description of the
behaviour of matter and energy, and Newton didn't practice science in
sense we understand the term today. He was explicitly looking for
absolutes - the imutable Laws of Nature set in place by the Creator -
not the provisional explanations for which modern science searches.
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution? |
|
|
On Jun 12, 5:54 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 12, 10:46 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
He was explicitly looking for
absolutes - the imutable Laws of Nature set in place by the Creator -
not the provisional explanations for which modern science searches.
I think I should make an entry at my sitehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
on this continual "Appeal to Abstract Authority" fallacy.
Modern science doesn't search for anything you do. There is no such
person by the name of "modern science".
|
I never said there was. The meaning of this sentence is perfectly
clear, and does not imply that there is an individual called "modern
science".
| Quote: |
You people keep on using this
logical fallacy as a rhetorical device, yet you never state you
disagree with my "AplAbstrAuthrty".
|
You are quite simply lying. I have posted such an explanation several
times.
| Quote: |
You simply will ignore my
statement.
|
I have posted responses to your assertions over and over again, and
you simply ignore them.
| Quote: |
You will neither agree nor disagree with my statement. Just
watch everybody @cbrp.co.uk will just refuse to adress my statement
which is according to me, I say so, not some "abstract authority"
|
What statement is that?
You make assertions which are not founded on any evidence, and when it
is explained to you why they are wrong you carry on as if nothing has
been written in response and even claim that there has been no
response when anyone with half a brain can check back up the thread
and see that you are lying.
I have no problem with this. As I keep reminding you, I post here to
expose the ignorance and dishonesty of creationists, and you are doing
a good job in helping me. I just find it strange that when you have
put yourself in the postion of demonstrably lying, you continue to
lie. Do you have such contempt for your fellow creationists that you
think that they are incapable of checking a few posts to see if you
are telling the truth?
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
