Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection-thread Closed


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 03:24 PM

To rely on the rare fortunate mistake, is a poor resource because [insert supporting arguments here]" would be an actual argument.


Well, that's very simple,......., mutations destroy information, they do not create it. And whether you view life as progression or not, the information that makes life possible, had to increase along the way. Consequently, evolution is falsified.... :D

Terry

#22 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 05:35 PM

If you are eliminating the marginal you are conserving the norm. The bottom line is science has shown NS to be a conserving force

View Post

More incomplete than incorrect. Biologists do speak of stabilizing or normalizing selection, which acts to eliminate deviations from a norm (even then, it's still selection). But they also speak of disruptive, or diversifying selection, which drives groups apart (as well as fractionating selection, which is a slightly different idea).

The tendency of stabilizing selection to act as a barrier to change within a population (and the greater tendency of selection to have a stabilizing, rather than disruptive effect) has been a source of much debate among evolutionary theorists, and is part of what led Gould and Eldredge to formulate their punctuated equilibria model, which rests on the proposition that allopatric speciation plays a more significant role than earlier theorists (especially Darwin) realized.

#23 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2005 - 06:36 PM

JP>I know fitness is reproductive success- that is what I said in my OP. That is what makes NS useless- there is no way to know which organisms are the most fit just by looking at them.

chance: Quite correct, you can’t determine by looking, which one out of many, is fitter than the other. Because what you see when you look at something is it’s size, weight, speed, colour, etc. While these outward traits have some bearing on the individuals capability to survive and win a mate, it wont be every factor.

JP> Which is what I have been saying. The factors other than those outward traits are not heritable and far outweigh those that are.


Are you stating that only outward traits are heritable!! I think you need to define what you mean here, e.g. what about the ability to digest food more efficiently?

Can you give me an example or two of a non-outward trait.



JP> You have to wait to check their offspring before making any determiniation on fitness. And even then about 84% of the alleles are not due to NS but some other factors such as chance & luck- which are not heritable traits.

chance: Correct again, once the parents have finished breeding, you could determine their success by counting the number of offspring that also made it to reproductive age and produced offspring.


JP> IF NS is to habe ANY effect at all one has to consider the reproductive success of all generations. And when that is done the best we get is oscillating allele frequencies. Which is not what is to be expected if NS was the "magic bullet" evolutionists want us to believe it is.


Reproductive success is what exists here and now, it’s can’t be anything else, so what’s to consider? What effect are you anticipating?

What do you mean by oscillating allele frequencies, please give a real life example.


chance: Natural selection is a description of a process not a method of measuring fitness, which is what you seem to be implying (false dilemma).

JP> NS is a description of a conserrving process which is quite the opposite of what evolutioniusts require of it.


Eminently false, as demonstration of animal husbandry. E.g. if all the dogs disappeared with the exception of the ‘Mexican barking rat’, has that hypothetical event ‘conserved’ it, or eliminated the others? ‘Conserving’ is meaningless, all that matters is change and it affect on it’s fitness.

Show me how you would ‘measure fitness’.

JP> If you are eliminating the marginal you are conserving the norm.


Ok, how is that any different from, If you are eliminating the norm by conserving the superior. There is no difference between your description and mine. Normal, superior, weak are subjective and the same argument you previously made about traits, it is no basis for an argument, all that matters is fitness.

The bottom line is science has shown NS to be a conserving force and random mutations a bankrupt source. Yet people like you believe that these two, when combined, can do things that can't be verified via experimentation. What is the difference between that and a miracle?


Nonsense, e.g. lets try this thought experiment - assume we make a genetically ‘superior’ (and by that I mean more fit in an evolutionary sense) animal and release it into the wild. Do you think natural selection will eliminate it because it’s ‘not normal’?

#24 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:15 PM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 27 2005, 01:02 PM)
As long as everyone understands that whether it (natural selection) has any real role in biological change is not the same as saying it doesn't exist, then we are OK.

Cal:
A good understanding of that must have been what you were working toward when you said: "In populations over 1000 NS is virtually non-existent."


One has nothing to do with the other. Is this your tactic when shown you are wrong? It must be, you use it often.often

However, that is what the data demonstrates. It is 16% at best. That % diminishes at the population size increases.


QUOTE
That is the debate- is NS the "magic bullet" evolutionists insist it is or is it the conservative force reality demonstrates it is?

Cal:
I don't recall ever hearing a biologist refer to selection as a 'magic bullet';


That means nothing. chance said he never heard a biologist use the word "aggregate" before even when it is used in the basic description of slime molds. Also I said "evolutionists" and I never said they referred to it as that. Obviously they can't or their pap will be revealed for what it is.

However it is obvious that NS it employed as a magic bullet.

Cal:
that appears to be your term


It is an obvious observation.

Cal:
-- but I will continue to point out, as I have before, that regarding it as a 'force' is quite mistaken. The one thing your linked article included that I agree with completely is this statement: "Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact" (the disapearing and reappearing, of course, taking place only in the minds of those who never understood that this was the situation from the very beginning).


Then you admit the foundation of evolutionary thinking is based on a mistaken non-existent notion.

Cal:
As for blind mutations: I'm still looking forward to you sharing your own thoughts on any of these subjects, but since you have chosen to stick with quote mining, I'd like to point out that the one you offer here is worthless. "To rely on the rare fortunate mistake, is a poor resource" is bald assertion. "To rely on the rare fortunate mistake, is a poor resource because [insert supporting arguments here]" would be an actual argument.


Whatever Cal. You have yet to offer anything at all. IOW coming from you that critique is meaningless. That alleged "bald assertion" comes from a prominent geneticist. He wouldn't have made it and there wouldn't be any scientists who are IDists or Creationists if you and your ilk could substantiate the claims you make. That my unworthy adversary is the fact of the matter.

Also- and as a matter of fact - evolutionists should be quite familiar with bald assertions- seeing that their "theory" relies heavily on them.

#25 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:19 PM

More incomplete than incorrect.  Biologists do speak of stabilizing or normalizing selection, which acts to eliminate deviations from a norm (even then, it's still selection).  But they also speak of disruptive, or diversifying selection, which drives groups apart (as well as fractionating selection, which is a slightly different idea).

The tendency of stabilizing selection to act as a barrier to change within a population (and the greater tendency of selection to have a stabilizing, rather than disruptive effect) has been a source of much debate among evolutionary theorists, and is part of what led Gould and Eldredge to formulate their punctuated equilibria model, which rests on the proposition that allopatric speciation plays a more significant role than earlier theorists (especially Darwin) realized.

View Post


It's not incorrect at all because that is what the data shows. Whatever is formulated is still subject to testing. As yet punk eek has not been tested and only remains an idea based on the assumption. Genetic homeostasis is the resistance a popualtion has to change. It is the reason fruit flies remain fruit flies, bacteria remain bacteria and viruses remain viruses. It is also the reason why stasis is the over-riding factor observed in the fossil record and what Gould & Eldridge were trying to explain.

#26 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:24 PM

chance:
Nonsense, e.g. lets try this thought experiment - assume we make a genetically ‘superior’ (and by that I mean more fit in an evolutionary sense) animal and release it into the wild. Do you think natural selection will eliminate it because it’s ‘not normal’?


But "more fit in an evolutionary sense" is a useless concept. Therefore any "genetically superior" organism, in that sense, is also a useless thought experiment.

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2005 - 07:47 PM

But "more fit in an evolutionary sense" is a useless concept. Therefore any "genetically superior" organism, in that sense, is also a useless thought experiment.

View Post


Evasion noted - You have already stated you understand what evolutionary fitness means, and agreed that it means ‘reproductive success’!

#28 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2005 - 08:27 PM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 27 2005, 01:02 PM)
One has nothing to do with the other.

View Post

Now, let me get this straight. You're not saying that selection doesn't exist. You are saying that it has no real role in biological change. You're also saying not only that these are not the same thing, but that one has nothing to do with the other. I'm interested in how you can consider selection to exist without producing change, especially considering that 'producing change' is part of its definition.

Then you admit the foundation of evolutionary thinking is based on a mistaken non-existent notion.

I admit that throughout the history of evolutionary biology there have been many whose cultural frames of reference have led them to mistakenly viewing selection as a 'force', rather than as a statistical effect. Even today, biologists may not always take the trouble to choose their words carefully enough to avoid this implication, or even notice when their thinking has crossed a line into accepting the 'force' metaphor as more than metaphor.

Whatever Cal.

D00d, no need to bring out the heavy artillery. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion, remember?


However, that is what the data demonstrates. It is 16% at best. That % diminishes at the population size increases.

Have you taken a good look at Kingsolver's paper (the original, that is, not just Berlinski's comments)? You have either missed its main thrust, or are happy to follow Berlinski's lead by misrepresenting what it said.


That alleged "bald assertion" comes from a prominent geneticist.

I'm so happy that you agree that it is bald assertion that I'm almost willing to overlook the fact that you have attempted to prop it up with yet another low-rent debating technique, the argument from authority. I mean, don't you think it a shame that Dr. Sermonti doesn't attempt to share with us, his audience, the unique insights he possesses as a result of his special training, and which led him to the conclusions he expresses? Does his 'prominent geneticist' status exempt him from the requirement to support what he says?

#29 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 05:06 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 28 2005, 12:24 PM)
But "more fit in an evolutionary sense" is a useless concept. Therefore any "genetically superior" organism, in that sense, is also a useless thought experiment.


chance:
Evasion noted -


There wasn't any evasion. I merely stated a fact.

What part of the genome would be manipulated to create this organism of yours? Please be specific.

chance:
You have already stated you understand what evolutionary fitness means, and agreed that it means ‘reproductive success’!


Yes and it is a useless concept- as the scientific data points out.

#30 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 05:18 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 27 2005, 07:15 PM)
QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 27 2005, 01:02 PM)
One has nothing to do with the other.

Cal:
Now, let me get this straight. You're not saying that selection doesn't exist.


If you had read my posts you would have read that I said, as well as scientists, that NS is a conserving force. If you really wanted to get things straight all you have to have is a little reading comprehension ability.

Cal:
You are saying that it has no real role in biological change.


That is what the scientific data demonstrates.

Cal:
You're also saying not only that these are not the same thing, but that one has nothing to do with the other. I'm interested in how you can consider selection to exist without producing change, especially considering that 'producing change' is part of its definition.


What is the data that demonstrates that NS produces change?

Mutations create the change. NS can only keep or remove that change.


QUOTE
That alleged "bald assertion" comes from a prominent geneticist.

Cal:
I'm so happy that you agree that it is bald assertion that I'm almost willing to overlook the fact that you have attempted to prop it up with yet another low-rent debating technique, the argument from authority.


You know all about low rent debating techniques seeing that is all you have. That alleged argument from authority is based on the evidence. IOW all you have to do is provide some that will show him to be wrong. Instead you focus on presenting diatribe.


One wonders if evos will EVER support what they claim. If history is any indication that would be a resounding NO.

As for a friendly discussion- you don't want a discussion. All evos ever want is to impose their will upon others. I am sure by now everyone has noticed your lack of substantiating anything you post. But that is a tactic I am used to.

#31 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 08:33 AM

Mutations create the change.

View Post

For brevity, maybe we can stipulate that any reference to selection producing change assumes that it is mutation that provides the raw material on which selection acts.


NS can only keep or remove that change.

"NS can only remove that change", I'm sure you meant to say, since you insist that it acts only as a conserving force. I wonder how you will explain that this same limitation does not apply to artificial selection. Humans may select, from litters of puppies, those with a certain attribute (say: fastest runners), the end result over many generations being the greyhound. Would you accept this as an example of change? What is it about this that is fundamentally different from the effects of predation (say by lions) on a prey animal (say a gazelle)?

#32 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:17 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 28 2005, 05:18 AM)
Mutations create the change.

Cal:
For brevity, maybe we can stipulate that any reference to selection producing change assumes that it is mutation that provides the raw material on which selection acts.


But selection doesn't produce the change. That is the point.



QUOTE
NS can only keep or remove that change.

Cal:
"NS can only remove that change", I'm sure you meant to say, since you insist that it acts only as a conserving force.


What I said was correct. Also I make no such insistence. The scientific data points to that end- that NS is a conserving force. However in small populations NS can account for 16% of the change in allele frequency of that population. 16%- probably your highest score on biology tests.

Cal:
I wonder how you will explain that this same limitation does not apply to artificial selection.


It does. Artificial selection has not yielded a blue rose. Artificial slection stopped the sugar beet from producing more than a 17% increase of sweetner.

Cal:
Humans may select, from litters of puppies, those with a certain attribute (say: fastest runners), the end result over many generations being the greyhound. Would you accept this as an example of change?


It is still the same species. And as far as anyone knows the genetic information has just been re-arranged, ie nothing new has been created.

Cal:
What is it about this that is fundamentally different from the effects of predation (say by lions) on a prey animal (say a gazelle)?


Are you EVER going to support the claims made by evolutionists or not? Do you have anything in the way of actual data that shows Dr. Semonti is wrong?

#33 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:30 AM

But selection doesn't produce the change. That is the point

View Post

Evolutionary theory posits that both mutation and selection work together to produce change. The point is that you disagree, but you are having a hard time explaining why.


The scientific data points to that end- that NS is a conserving force. However in small populations NS can account for 16% of the change in allele frequency of that population.

Those two statements are contradictory -- unless what you are saying is that NS is a conserving force in large populations, but not in small ones (an idea that seems pretty compatible with Gould and Eldredge's greater emphasis on allopatric speciation, btw). Care to clarify?


It does.  Artificial selection has not yielded a blue rose.

Are you seriously presenting that fact as evidence that artificial selection is a conserving force? Nowhere do biologists claim that selection can produce change beyond the variability made available by mutation. Your earlier statement that "mutations create the change" indicate that you recognize this fact.


It is still the same species. And as far as anyone knows the genetic information has just been re-arranged, ie nothing new has been created.

The question I asked was: "Would you accept this as an example of change?" It was a yes-or-no question.

#34 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 July 2005 - 01:43 PM

chance: Evasion noted -

JP> There wasn't any evasion. I merely stated a fact.

JP> What part of the genome would be manipulated to create this organism of yours? Please be specific.


More evasion, it’s a simple hypothetical question, how or why is not important.

chance: You have already stated you understand what evolutionary fitness means, and agreed that it means ‘reproductive success’!

Yes and it is a useless concept- as the scientific data points out.


But failed to back up, e.g. below is a selection of reasonable questions posed that require explanation to further understand your objections, yet you ignore these and focus on a trivial and irrelevant point.

Are you stating that only outward traits are heritable!! I think you need to define what you mean here, e.g. what about the ability to digest food more efficiently?

Can you give me an example or two of a non-outward trait.


And

Reproductive success is what exists here and now, it’s can’t be anything else, so what’s to consider? What effect are you anticipating?

What do you mean by oscillating allele frequencies, please give a real life example.


And

Eminently false, as demonstration of animal husbandry. E.g. if all the dogs disappeared with the exception of the ‘Mexican barking rat’, has that hypothetical event ‘conserved’ it, or eliminated the others? ‘Conserving’ is meaningless, all that matters is change and it affect on it’s fitness.

Show me how you would ‘measure fitness’.


And

Ok, how is that any different from, If you are eliminating the norm by conserving the superior. There is no difference between your description and mine. Normal, superior, weak are subjective and the same argument you previously made about traits, it is no basis for an argument, all that matters is fitness.


It has become very apparent over the last few weeks that you prefer to argue in circles and debate semantics instead of the evidence. I respectfully request that you debate in the intended spirit of this forum i.e. the pros and cons of evolution/creation using courteous exchanges of knowledge, please.

#35 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 06:09 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 28 2005, 10:17 AM)
But selection doesn't produce the change. That is the point

Cal:
Evolutionary theory posits that both mutation and selection work together to produce change. The point is that you disagree, but you are having a hard time explaining why.


Tell you what- why don't YOU present the evidence that confirms this claim. We will see what "change" can be accounted for.



QUOTE
The scientific data points to that end- that NS is a conserving force. However in small populations NS can account for 16% of the change in allele frequency of that population.

Cal:
Those two statements are contradictory -- unless what you are saying is that NS is a conserving force in large populations, but not in small ones (an idea that seems pretty compatible with Gould and Eldredge's greater emphasis on allopatric speciation, btw). Care to clarify?


My last check shows that 16% is much less than 84%. In those terms NS is a conserving force. Why wouldn't a scientist want to hedge his inference on the 84%?



QUOTE
It does. Artificial selection has not yielded a blue rose.

Cal:
Are you seriously presenting that fact as evidence that artificial selection is a conserving force? Nowhere do biologists claim that selection can produce change beyond the variability made available by mutation. Your earlier statement that "mutations create the change" indicate that you recognize this fact.


Most "change" is detrimental or neutral to the organism. Even the rare "beneficial" mutation does not give the change required. Also we still do not know what makes an organism what it is- why a fly is a fly, why a horse is a horse. Therefore anyone suggesting that mutations can account for the changes required is totally full of it.

#36 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 06:12 AM

More evasion, it’s a simple hypothetical question, how or why is not important.
But failed to back up,  e.g. below is a selection of reasonable questions posed that require explanation to further understand your objections, yet you ignore these and focus on a trivial and irrelevant point.
And
And
And
It has become very apparent over the last few weeks that you prefer to argue in circles and debate semantics instead of the evidence.  I respectfully request that you debate in the intended spirit of this forum i.e. the pros and cons of evolution/creation using courteous exchanges of knowledge, please.

View Post


I don't do hypothetical questions and you have failed to support anything you post. Not one shred of evidence. All you appear to be capable of doping is to say "No it's not" or "yes it is".

The bottom line here people is that IF evolutionists could substantiate their claims there wouldn't be any debate on the topic. There wouldn't be an ID. There would be theistic evolution and there wouldn't be any Creation model. I would surely still be an evolutionist.

#37 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2005 - 08:45 AM

My last check shows that 16% is much less than 84%.

View Post

The influence of selection could be much less than that and still be an influence.

Here's a thought experiment:

We each toss a coin. If it's heads, we step forward two feet, and if it's tails, we step back one. The winner of this race is determined entirely by luck. Now we add one more rule: every (let's say) seventh time, I get to step forward even if I get a tails. Now, if the race covers a distance of only five feet, the outcome might still be entirely a matter of luck. But if the finish line is a mile away, my slight advantage will almost certainly make me the winner, as the distribution of random coin tosses evens out. Even if I got a free heads only one out of ten times, or one out of thirty, I would still be the guy to bet on.

In those terms NS is a conserving force.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In a large population, well adapted to a stable environment, we would expect selection to be of the normalizing variety. You have offered no basis for the strong claim that selection is a conserving force under all circumstances.

Also we still do not know what makes an organism what it is- why a fly is a fly, why a horse is a horse.

I guess that lets you off the hook as far as answering my question about whether wolf-to-greyhound represents an example of change.

#38 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 29 July 2005 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 29 2005, 06:09 AM)
My last check shows that 16% is much less than 84%.

Cal:
The influence of selection could be much less than that and still be an influence.


The data demonstrates that genetic homeostasis is the norm. Also that 16% will soon get lost in the population therefore affording no long-range effect at all.


QUOTE
In those terms NS is a conserving force.

Cal:
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In a large population, well adapted to a stable environment, we would expect selection to be of the normalizing variety. You have offered no basis for the strong claim that selection is a conserving force under all circumstances.


All the evidence points to genetic homeostasis. The sugar beet remained a sugar beet could only yoeld a 17% increase in sweetners no matter what was done. The beaks of finches always oscillate- could be short, could be long and various beak lengths have been observed in the same nest.


QUOTE
Also we still do not know what makes an organism what it is- why a fly is a fly, why a horse is a horse.

Cal:
I guess that lets you off the hook as far as answering my question about whether wolf-to-greyhound represents an example of change.


It is definetly not an example of change that would allow any objective person to infer all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

Mixing variations do not tell us how the variations or the species came to be in the first place. Howver I understand the only position evolutionists have is start with that which needs explaining in the first place and add more assertions and false extrpolations onto that in order to "demonstrate" their point.


What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter IV “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

#39 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2005 - 10:55 AM

I guess that lets you off the hook as far as answering my question about whether wolf-to-greyhound represents an example of change.


I think you know by know that even a creationist model predicts "change" in this sense. Trying to use that as evidence that life has common ancestor is really "bait and switch".

Terry

#40 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2005 - 11:12 AM

The data demonstrates that genetic homeostasis

View Post

Without getting into your lack of specificity with regard to "The Data", we might note (again) that this is essentially what Gould and Eldredge claimed was most consistent with the pattern they observed in the fossil record, and exactly what we would expect in a large population well adapted to a stable environment. We are, of course, really talking about two separate things here: data, and interpretations of data; data, by themselves, do not demonstrate anything. (I have yet to be entirely convinced that the PE model represents the best possible interpretation of the data, btw, but offer it primarily to make this point).

Also that 16% will soon get lost in the population therefore affording no long-range effect at all.

I proposed the little thought experiment above in the hope that it would offer a simple way to examine the interplay between random and non-random effects. I would be surprised to see you attempt to argue that the effects of the occasional free move would be lost by swamping in the greater frequency of random tosses. I must assume that your proposal that the effects of selection would be 'lost in the population' rests on something having to do with the distribution of alleles in populations of s*xually reproducing organisms. Can you be specific about the basis of your assertion?



I think you know by know that even a creationist model predicts "change" in this sense.

View Post

Great. So if we're about done wiggling around on that simple point, maybe we can return to what I really considered the more important question:

What is it about this [artificial selection] that is fundamentally different from the effects of predation (say by lions) on a prey animal (say a gazelle)?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users