Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection Observed


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#41 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:47 AM

Any my old question is still there. Even when I assume that evolution is observed to occur to, say, a kind of fish, how can this be extended to the conclusion that evolution occurred to humans?!

View Post

It doesn’t, unless you realize that we adapt to our surroundings. Other than that, humans have always been humans.


Where's the logic of the following statement,

Because evolution (by natural selection) of a fish is observed, thus it is proven that evolution has occurred to humans (or any other species).

View Post


There is no logic in the statement, other than what bobabelever said; “This fits nicely in the creation model; micro-evolution >=< adaptation”

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:50 AM

I'm now completely confused by creationists now.

Some say natural selection = artificial selection.
Some say no natural selection whatsoever.
Some say natural selection to a point.

View Post


No, evolutionist attempt to swap the word adaptation with “micro-evolution” and “natural selection”. Then wah-lah!!! We have evolution!!!

#43 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:51 AM

There is no logic in the statement, other than what bobabelever said; “This fits nicely in the creation model; micro-evolution >=< adaptation”


And that is all that I have claimed.

#44 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:57 AM

No, evolutionist attempt to swap the word adaptation with “micro-evolution” and “natural selection”. Then wah-lah!!! We have evolution!!!


Ron, I have in this thread attempted to understand the creationist position. I have shown here NS in action, observed etc.

I thought that was how creationists thought things happened, NS within a Kind. If it isn't, then what is it? Remember, adaption is not a mechanism.

On another note - no criticism intended, this is purely from a matter of interest - wah-lah is actually 'voila' from the French for "there it is"

#45 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 06:19 AM

Ron, I have in this thread attempted to understand the creationist position.  I have shown here NS in action, observed etc.

View Post

You have commented on adaptation in action. NS is an invented word intended to support evolution “specifically”.

I thought that was how creationists thought things happened, NS within a Kind.  If it isn't, then what is it?  Remember, adaption is not a mechanism.

View Post

Why is “adaptation” not a mechanism; because evolutionists say so?

On another note - no criticism intended, this is purely from a matter of interest - wah-lah is actually 'voila' from the French for "there it is"

View Post


And ‘hey guy’s, watch this’ is red-neck for ‘viola’. But, it doesn’t change the meaning to support a model or hypothesis.

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 06:21 AM

And that is all that I have claimed.

View Post


Then you are running around in circles, because you are basically saying Creation is correct. Therefore one must conclude that there is more here than meets the eye in your line of questioning. So the best thing is to get to it.

#47 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 24 June 2010 - 08:05 AM

What I have said is that the particular details in this thread are exactly what creationists have said. ie that there is descent with modification within each kind.

This thread looks at descent with modification within a species, but still Creationists have argued with me about it.

I find this confusing, and would like to know why the are arguing about something which is scientific, empirical and which is not against their ideas.

#48 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:29 PM

A summary of this thread:

OP - Fish can and do sometimes adapt.

Other posters - yes, fish can and do sometimes adapt.

At least one poster, and I believe the ultimate intent of the OP - micro-evolution could lead to macro-evolution; ooze to fish to human is possible given millions/billions of years.

Other posters - ooze...to...human has never been observed. There is no evidence whatsoever that shows this happened or is even possible.

Conclusion - Fish, et al, can and do sometimes adapt.

End of discussion! <_<

#49 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 June 2010 - 08:39 PM

ooze...to...human has never been observed.  There is no evidence whatsoever that shows this happened or is even possible.

View Post


The evidence is in the phylogeny and we know it is possible because speciation has been observed within our lifetime.

#50 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 June 2010 - 09:07 PM

The evidence is in the phylogeny and we know it is possible because speciation has been observed within our lifetime.

View Post

Speciation is most definitely not evidence of ooze...to...human.

Reference, Dictionary.com, speciation
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

(I personally don't agree with the definition, I would agree if it said "sub species" - that is more accurate.)

So we have a population of rats, that split as a result of various factors,
and we have rats that can't mate with the original population - they're still rats. <_<

The evidence shows that rats beget rats, which fits in the creationist worldview.

#51 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 12:48 AM

Boba,

I know both sides accept adaption.

The thing I keep asking "what do creationists say is the mechanism for that adaption?"

Some say NS. That makes sense to me, and I'm not aiming the question at them.

The OP gave a brilliant example of NS. Where selection was being caused by predators, which changed the form of the guppies (yes, I know they are still guppies!).

Some creationists still seem to doubt that NS is a mechanism, and I want to understand what their opinion is.

Maybe you aren't the sort of creationist I'm talking about.

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:32 AM

A summary of this thread:

OP - Fish can and do sometimes adapt.

Other posters - yes, fish can and do sometimes adapt.

At least one poster, and I believe the ultimate intent of the OP - micro-evolution could lead to macro-evolution; ooze to fish to human is possible given millions/billions of years.

Other posters - ooze...to...human has never been observed.  There is no evidence whatsoever that shows this happened or is even possible.

Conclusion - Fish, et al, can and do sometimes adapt.

End of discussion! :)

View Post


Yes, that pretty much sums it up. :)

#53 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:43 AM

Great! We all agree :)

But...how do they adapt? NS or some other mechanism?

It's a subtle point, and with my poor English, I'm not suprised that it gets missed, but saying adaption is like saying I adapted to play the guitar, it doesn't explain the process.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:21 AM

Great!  We all agree :)

View Post


I’m not so sure about that after reading post# 51

But...how do they adapt?  NS or some other mechanism?

View Post



When it gets cold, I put on a jacket. When it gets warm, I put on a tank-top. When I stay out in the sun too long, my skin gets darker. If I move to a colder climate I become less dark. If I study, I gain knowledge. If I don't study, I stagnate (etcetera...etcetera..).

It's actually a pretty cool design, and has absolutely nothing to do with “NS”



It's a subtle point, and with my poor English, I'm not suprised that it gets missed, but saying adaption is like saying I adapted to play the guitar, it doesn't explain the process.

View Post


I doubt (from reading you posts) that you have “poor’” English. And, being a guitar player, I can say unequivocally, that I have adapted to play guitar by studying and practicing, and “adapting” my style by emulating and combining what I liked from other guitar players, to my own growing abilities over the years.

Here are a few examples if you’d care to listen:

http://soundclick.co...?songid=7448903

http://soundclick.co...?songid=5897634

http://soundclick.co...?songid=9232534

http://soundclick.co...?songid=7018468

And, “nature” didn’t drive any of it. My desire to learn, and my love of music did.

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:23 AM

Great!  We all agree :)

But...how do they adapt?  NS or some other mechanism?

It's a subtle point, and with my poor English, I'm not suprised that it gets missed, but saying adaption is like saying I adapted to play the guitar, it doesn't explain the process.

View Post



I understand Phil.. You want to hear out the creationist side, as to their views on adaption and how it comes about ie- which process does this :D

But now I'm getting confused :) :)

#56 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 06:12 AM

Ron, I've already listened to your music by going to your website and I am impressed! It is beautiful music.

The point was an analogy, though, of course. Yes you adapted to be able to learn, but the mechanism of hard work, learning, practicing etc was what made the adaption happen.

Species adapt, and I would say NS drives the adaption. If that isn't the mechansim that drives the adaption, what is?

To use the example from another thread, some guppies become brightly coloured, some become camoflagued. These are both adaptions but it is NS that pushes them to adapt (by the difference in predation levels).

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 June 2010 - 06:36 AM

Ron, I've already listened to your music by going to your website and I am impressed!  It is beautiful music.

View Post

Thanks…. By the way, that was shameless self promotion on my part!


Just kidding, I don’t sell my music; I pretty much give it away. The point was analogous to the conversation.


The point was an analogy, though, of course. 

View Post

Absolutely!

Yes you adapted to be able to learn, but the mechanism of hard work, learning, practicing etc was what made the adaption happen.

View Post

All driven by a force, analogues to intelligence and a designed plan bent on achieving the goal of that plan. Adaptation via intelligence and desire.


Species adapt, and I would say NS drives the adaption. 

View Post

From where then, does NS derive this drive? Or are we into a tautology here? Everything that has a drive, has a desire behind that drive. And nature doesn’t drive that desire, because nature is just a word. Or, are you suggesting that nature is something more?

If that isn't the mechansim that drives the adaption, what is?

View Post


The design built into all of this, governed by the laws written into all of this, is a series of mechanisms that cooperate in the drives that motivate adaptation.

You are hungry- you desire to eat.
You are cold-you desire heat.
You are threatened- you desire to defend yourself
A certain location no longer supports the sustenance to give you nourishment, or becomes too dangerous for you and yours, so you move on to an area that can provide what you need.


To use the example from another thread, some guppies become brightly coloured, some become camoflagued.  These are both adaptions but it is NS that pushes them to adapt (by the difference in predation levels).

View Post


But they are both still guppies, nothing has changed that. Being a retired soldier, I understand camouflage and survival. But “nature” had nothing to do with it, because nature is nothing more than a insubstantial and intangible word. Or, are you suggesting that nature is something more?

#58 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 07:17 AM

Thanks…. By the way, that was shameless self promotion on my part!


No problem there - why hide your light under a bushel? I'm sure I read that in a book somewhere... :)

But they are both still guppies, nothing has changed that. Being a retired soldier, I understand camouflage and survival. But “nature” had nothing to do with it, because nature is nothing more than a insubstantial and intangible word. Or, are you suggesting that nature is something more?


Not at all.

More guppies are born than can survive to adulthood and reproduce.

In a predator rich environment the ones that survive are the most camoflagued. These survivors are more likely to have camoflagued children.

In a predator free environment, females will mate with the brightest coloured ones. They will pass on bright colours to their children.

The key thing is that there is variation in the colour. Where there are predators, there is still S@xual selection, but the selection pressure (not an intelligent force, just the “push” given by predators and females as described above) is biased for camoflague. Of the camoflagued ones, the females will mate with the brightest of them. There will be a balance point where if the guppy is too camoflagued it will survive and not mate, but if it is too bright it won’t last long enough to mate. The guppies that survive are the ones between these extremes.

Notice, no sentience is required. It is ‘natural’ selection but it isn’t some force that we know as ‘nature’ picking and choosing.

#59 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:27 PM

Other posters - ooze...to...human has never been observed.  There is no evidence whatsoever that shows this happened or is even possible.


No, that's not accurate. The point is, you can believe whatever you wish, yet the question is 'is that scientific'? Is that a scientific conclusion?

Because <something> is observed in fish, such that humans were evolved from <something...such as apes?>.

This statement is not scientific, it's rather a fallacy the evolutionists have fallen for and in the hope that others will fall for the same, disregarding to what actually happened to humans in history.

It is thus not about what actually happened to humans, it is about the argument leading to the evolutionists' conclusion is a fallacy. Moreover, science is lab-based instead of mouth based, so I think that why such a verbal argument is even needed in science at all, <_< And it seems to lead to yet another evolutionist fallacy. They think that because it's too difficult to establish the lab environment such that what they believe must be the truth.

Common evolutionist fallacy;
because the lab is too difficult to establish such that my theory must be the absolute truth. :huh:

#60 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:14 AM

Because <something> is observed in fish, such that humans were evolved from <something...such as apes?>.

This statement is not scientific, it's rather a fallacy the evolutionists have fallen for and in the hope that others will fall for the same, disregarding to what actually happened to humans in history.

Common evolutionist fallacy;
because the lab is too difficult to establish such that my theory must be the absolute truth. 


This is a gross misrepresentation of the details. If evolution happened it would leave a particular signature. Searching for that signature is a scientific process. Not all science is done in a lab (a particularly virulent misrepresentation this one), but some evolutionary work, such as the discovery of a set of positive mutations that together increased the fitness of the organism that had them is done in the lab.

The scientific question is: “If evolution happened, what would we expect to see?”




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users