Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PhilC

Natural Selection Observed

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :)

57140[/snapback]

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great!  We all agree :)

57160[/snapback]

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

 

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

57160[/snapback]

 

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 “NSâ€ÂÂ

 

 

 

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.

57160[/snapback]

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.com/share?songid=7448903

 

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=5897634

 

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=9232534

 

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=7018468

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

57160[/snapback]

 

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 :):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

57177[/snapback]

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. 

57177[/snapback]

Absolutely!

 

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

57177[/snapback]

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. 

57177[/snapback]

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?

57177[/snapback]

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).

57177[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?â€ÂÂ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a gross misrepresentation of the details. 

57425[/snapback]

Actually, it is not a misinterpretation at all. The only problem is that you disagree with it. And you have to do much more than attempt to wave your hand and magically say “This is a gross misrepresentation of the detailsâ€ÂÂ. You need to follow it up with actual evidences of your assertion. And you have yet to do such.

 

If evolution happened it would leave a particular signature.

57425[/snapback]

No, if evolution happened it would leave solid evidences, not interpretative innuendoes. There are absolutely “NO†transitional forms or evidences: No fin to limb transitions, no lips to beak transitions, no scale to feather transitions, No spot to eye transitions (etcetera… etcetera…). None have yet been posited for consideration, or empirically adduced. Therefore, all discussion is speculative at best. Further,

 

Searching for that signature is a scientific process. 

57425[/snapback]

No, searching for that signature is a philosophical process. Searching for “evidence†is a scientific pursuit via the inductive scientific method.

 

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.

57425[/snapback]

The empirical scientific method is performed in a controlled environment. Field work is done, then the finding are sent back to the controlled environment for scientific study. The misinterpretation is in positing that anything outside a controlled environment can be verified as empirical.

 

 

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

57425[/snapback]

Actual “transitional†evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?â€ÂÂ

57425[/snapback]

That's not even the point I was trying to make. My point is, you can't simply observe the simplicity of fish then apply it to the complexity of humans. Whatever you observed from fish can only be applied to fish unless you've found what's in common for the findings to apply.

 

Yet evolutionists often fall for and tend to apply the fallacy that "because evolution is found in fishes (I even assume they are right on this), such that evolution in humans are proven". <---------- this is a fallacy.

 

Moreover, the tactics of the evolutionists is that they try to show you how "evolution" occurred to the becteria, then then will draw the conclusion that "evolution exists". Then they start to apply the "fact" ;) that "evolution exists" then keep talking about how high end animals are evolved and to present them as "facts".

 

The fallacious line of logic is more or less like,

 

It is obvious that 1+1=2, then mathematics is true, then 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 are true as well because "mathematics is true" and they are of mathematics. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not even the point I was trying to make. My point is, you can't simply observe the simplicity of fish then apply it to the complexity of humans. Whatever you observed from fish can only be applied to fish unless you've found what's in common for the findings to apply.

There is a lot more in common than you are allowing yourself to see. Such as both life forms are guided by genetics, not necessarily by the hand, but certainly in their physical traits.

 

Then there are outside pressures that affect their chances of survival, natural, artificial and S@xual selective pressures will dictate who gets a chance to survive.

 

Those are just a few similarities.

 

Yet evolutionists often fall for and tend to apply the fallacy that "because evolution is found in fishes (I even assume they are right on this), such that evolution in humans are proven". <---------- this is a fallacy.

 

Moreover, the tactics of the evolutionists is that they try to show you how "evolution" occurred to the becteria, then then will draw the conclusion that "evolution exists". Then they start to apply the "fact"  ;) that "evolution exists" then keep talking about how high end animals are evolved and to present them as "facts".

If all life is governed by genetics, and with genetics you can show that different traits are stronger in different situations then yes you can make you case for evolution.

 

The fallacious line of logic is more or less like,

 

It is obvious that 1+1=2, then mathematics is true, then 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 are true as well because "mathematics is true" and they are of mathematics.  :D

57470[/snapback]

Unfortunately it is nothing like that at all. For this example to be true Evolutionists would have to be claiming that a dog will give birth to a new species without any sort of transition in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this example to be true Evolutionists would have to be claiming that a dog will give birth to a new species without any sort of transition in between.

57484[/snapback]

;) They are since they haven't found any transitions / intermediates :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:  They are since they haven't found any transitions / intermediates  ;)

57486[/snapback]

And that is the main point (or sticking point). But, many non-transitionals will be submitted (mistakenly or intentionally) as the real thing. Or, the definition will be modified to include non-transitionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked you before Ron, what would you expect a transitional to look like?

 

Evolutionists have a tight definition of what constitutes a transitional. Do you know what that is?

 

I have given a particular example here for you to discuss, and this shows exactly what we mean exactly.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...t=0&?do=findComment&comment=57787

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon?

 

Read On the Origin of Species Natural Selection requires variation.

 

Mutations increase variation.

 

Natural selection + mutation = evolution (micro only!)

 

That is where your example has failed. How does a guppy genetically mutate into different colors in an aquarium and then re-mutate back to it's original camoflauge colors when released back into the wild? Mutation is a one way direction and irrevesible, so this is not Darwinian natural selection; It's gene expression.

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked you before Ron, what would you expect a transitional to look like?

 

What is quite funny here is that I have stated OVER-AND-OVER what "transitional forms AND evidences" would be. In fact, in post #61 (on this page) I said: "if evolution happened it would leave solid evidences, not interpretative innuendoes. There are absolutely “NO” transitional forms or evidences: No fin to limb transitions, no lips to beak transitions, no scale to feather transitions, No spot to eye transitions (etcetera… etcetera…). None have yet been posited for consideration, or empirically adduced. Therefore, all discussion is speculative at best." In all actuallity, for MACRO-evolution to be true, we would have to find a "continual and gradual transitional evolving chain of life" like fish to land creature to ape-like creature to man (etc...). BUT all we have as pseudo-evidence from the evolutionists is skulls and bones stacked side-by-side with millenial gaps of time (evolution-of-the-gaps) between them, and no real empirical evidence that ties any of them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... He took some of these guppies back to the lab and put them in tanks with various bottoms, such as sand and gravel and different levels of predation from fish such as pike cichlid, Crenicichla alta, which is its natural predator. He also had some put in with the Killifish ( Rivulus hartii) which is a weak predator, and with different layers on the bottom. In another set of tanks were guppies with no predation, but the same layers along the bottom. He saw the species change in 6 months (in spot number, size and the colour depending on whether the selection was the Cichlid, the Killifish or the female), and he then took some of these back and put them into a tributary with only killifish and checked on them two years later and they were already more brightly coloured. This is only a quick summary of the detail. I couldn’t do it justice, but nine years later, another researcher found the descendants of Endler’s introduced guppies and they were as brightly coloured as ever.

What gives you (or him) the idea that this wasn't a preprogrammed response? Epigenetics perhaps? Did they investigate changes in the DNA, if yes, please give a source? If not, I think the example needs to be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gives you (or him) the idea that this wasn't a preprogrammed response? Epigenetics perhaps? Did they investigate changes in the DNA, if yes, please give a source? If not, I think the example needs to be dismissed.

 

Mark,

Phil was banned a while back. I was responding to the childishness of his reply to me, not to him. Phil showed the propencity to not answer for his assertions, but rather side step the issues at hand, and pretend facts didn't really matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms