12 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeIt needs a divorce from DNA code too. Excuse me, they were never married.
"If you are simply trying to discredit Darwin, then you will probably succeed on some points because Darwin got many things wrong, but thats because he didn't have the information available to him that we do today.
But if you think you can dispute some of the major aspects of our modern understanding understanding of Evolution, then you need to put a lot to this theory. It's for this reason evolution needed to divorce itself from abiogenesis.
The Instructor
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, not at all. We are discussing a definition here, and definitions are never right or wrong, they are merely agreed upon for the sake of communication. I am just pointing out that your definition of 'evolution' is different from mine and that mine is the standard one (for which I presented Wikipedia as evidence). This doesn't make you wrong, but it does suggest that it will lead to miscommunication just as your non-standard use of the word 'information' lead to miscommunication.
Wikipedia said it, you believe it, and that settles it? Really?
Can you deal with the points one at a time in an organized and logical fashion?
OK.
1. Darwin noted variation within species.
Agreed. He also noted much more than this.
2. He ascribed this variation to a process of natural selection.
In part, yes. Again, there is a bit more too it, including mutation.
3. He proposed a unifying link, using those two observations, to account for one species becoming another.
Here I am confused. It is not at all clear what you are saying. Can you please restate it?
he developed the idea of all life progressively becoming more complex, and assumed this process branches down to a common ancestry.
Agreed.
4. Mutation is believed to be that unifying link.
As above, I really don't understand what you mean by 'link' here.
5. If 4. is true and there is no doubt about it, then the question has been settled.
What question has been settled? Maybe you should state the question as well as explaining more about this 'link' business.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo would you agree that dogs are descended from wolves, or is that too much variation for you?
Well, if that is all it is, then we may not have a big problem with it, unless your changes go much above adaptive changes through natural selection to produce slight variation is species. What we object to is that at one time man was not a man, but some other creature before Evil-lution took over.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeOK, it makes more sense no. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I wasn't defining the 'word' evolution. I was describing the evolution of evolution, and asking you to confirm or deny it... one point at a time, if that's okay with you.
If it's not mutation, then what is it... what allows animals to evolve? Either you've been saying mutations can account for evolution, or you haven't yet said what it is. If there is no mechanism for one species to evolve into another, or mutations don't factor into that mechanism, then what does? What makes it possible for an organism to evolve into a different organism?
I have been saying that mutations factor into it. There is of course a lot more too it, but mutations and natural selection play a big part. I still don't understand the whole 'link' terminology. What exactly are mutations a 'link' between? Do you mean they are an 'explanation'?
I am also not sure what you are disputing, that mutations take place, that they are important in evolution?
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo why not list some of the so called 'inconsistencies'.
If evolution has evolved beyond Darwins understanding of it it's because evolution has necessarily needed to do that.... to explain the inconsistencies we now know to exist in regard to this theory. It's for this reason evolution needed to divorce itself from abiogenesis.
Its not true that 'evolution needed to divorce itself from abiogenesis'. It has never been dependant on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a conclusion from the Theory of Evolution, or from the fact that we exist. If anything, the Theory of evolution allows for a single abiogenesis event whereas without common ancestry, one must conclude there were large numbers of abiogenesis events.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI also have no problem with the variations of man. As I said my problem begins with the idea that some natural process like mutations changes, for example, a wolf into a man. I don't believe in a werewolf or a wolfman, except for Wolfman Jack, who is still really just a man that howls like a wolf.
No problem with that.
The Instructor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfman_Jack
The Instructor
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHow about a rat into a bat, or a horse into a donkey? Exactly how big a change will you accept and where do you draw the line and why? Lets leave man out of the equation because we both know that you have religious reasons for denying that man could have come from anything other than a pile of mud.
I also have no problem with the variations of man. As I said my problem begins with the idea that some natural process like mutations changes, for example, a wolf into a man.
12 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat on earth are you talking about now? You completely change the subject yet again.
If you are unwilling to accept instruction, then you will have to remain ignorant.
The Instructor
"instruction" from who? you? Is that way you call yourself "The Instructor"? Given the fact we understand science much better than you do, what makes you qualified to 'instruct' us about it? It should be the other way around.
12 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by forkedknight
I would say "disadvantageous genes are selected against", as opposed to the statement you make which is "advantageous genes are selected for".
"Natural Selection" does not know what mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous. If some event or circumstance causes some members of a species to die and not others, that is "selection". If a mu ...[text shortened]... ls all of them.
Which mutation does "Natural Selection" consider more advantageous?
I would say "disadvantageous genes are selected against", as opposed to the statement you make which is "advantageous genes are selected for".
that comment was in response to him saying “Mutations are generally eliminated during future reproduction ...” so I assume, if he was making any sense at all, he was talking about disadvantageous genes because disadvantageous genes are generally not selected for.
Also note BOTH assertions are true; "disadvantageous genes are selected against" AND "advantageous genes are selected for".
"Natural Selection" does not know what mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous.
Yes, this is the same straw man we get again and again. We do not say nor believe it knows nor does it need to know anything to select.
If some event or circumstance causes some members of a species to die and not others, that is "selection". If a mutation arises that has no immediate effect on survivability, it may or may not still be passed on from generation to generation.
yes, obviously.
Take two populations of the same species in different areas:
Population A of a particular species produces a mutation that causes some members to be green.
Population B produces a different mutation that allows them to see through walls.
Population B lives next to a volcano that explodes and kills all of them.
Which mutation does "Natural Selection" consider more advantageous?
I would say None because natural selection does not 'consider' anything. It selects A, NOT considers A !!!
12 Jun 13
4 edits
RJHinds
yes or no: Do you understand and acknowledge that modern evolution theory says that ALL genes, with no exceptions, are mutations, even if the mutations that gave rise to most of those genes that exist today happened many millions of years ago?
-and please please done just completely change the subject yet again. It is a very very simple question that only requires a very simple "yes" or "no".
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyActually they are the same thing, it just depends on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist. When there are two different genes competing in a population, one is advantageous and the other is disadvantageous and the advantageous one will get selected over the disadvantageous one.
Also note BOTH assertions are true; "disadvantageous genes are selected against" AND "advantageous genes are selected for".
I guess another way to look at it is to call whichever gene is most prevalent in a population 'neutral' and then judge a less common gene either advantageous or disadvantageous depending on its benefit/detriment relative to the common gene, but this would tend to be confusing when there are multiple genes with no clear majority.
12 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYes, but his point is that sometimes selection is related to specific genes which can then be judged 'advantageous' or 'disadvantageous', and sometimes the selection has nothing to do with the genes, so the genes are totally neutral with regards to the selection.
I would say None because natural selection does not 'consider' anything. It selects A, NOT considers A !!!
If avian flu kills 30% of a population, the gene for brown hair has nothing to do with survivability and is thus neutral with regards to the selection even if it just so happens that people with brown hair die in greater number than people with black hair.