Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Did It

Recommended Posts

I see, so saying there's a difference between two things is actually saying that the two things are the same. I'll try to keep that in mind.
Hang on you said that there was only one difference between natural and artificial selection and that was it. I demonstrated that there were more differences than the one you proposed, ergo you were wrong... Why not admit this? I clearly demonstrated how you were incorrect earlier... or are we seeing narcissistic tendencies?

 

The problem with your analogy is that you haven't established that anyone thinks the bag was lifted by the weaker person.
Sigh.. Anyone who claims that natural selection was the cause of the assumed evolutionary changes...
Here I'll try and spell it out.
If artificial selection is stronger than natural selection, (for reasons I gave earlier).. and what we observe is artificial selection being limited by trade-offs... Then on what basis can you claim that natural selection is not affected by the limits of trade-offs?
You are assuming that the weaker (natural) selection can accomplish what the stronger (artificial) selection cannot, hence the analogy of weaker man lifting what the stronger man cannot. This is basic logic my friend :)

 

That depends on what you mean by 'know'. We can reasonably conclude it's the case because for the majority of organisms with known relationships, assignment of relationships based on similarities within DNA or body shape are consistent with the known relationships.

 

Circular reasoning strikes again. I suggest you read this thread, (yes the entirety of it), because it stands as a testament to how evolutionists use circular reasoning (begging the question fallacy), like you are right now.

 

I asked you to support how you know that similarities = ancestry... Yet here you are assuming similarities = ancestry with claiming "known relationships"...

 

How do you know of this "known relationship"? You assume that similarities = ancestry and then claim that the more similar are related...

 

But hang on... Is this how you support the assumption of similarities = ancestry... by assuming what you set out to support is true... Hence circular logic.

 

However at the end of the day this is not an experiment. I asked you for an experiment, not people making conjectures / assumptions.

 

 

 

Sure, take a group of animals with known relatedness. Group them by similarities in DNA or morphology. Compare with the known ancestry and see if the results are consistent.

 

For a rather simple example, take a dog, wolf, insect, and a banana. We know that the dog and wolf are more closely related to each other than the banana or insect. See if the DNA and morphology comparison matches the expected results.

 

"Group them by similarities in DNA or morphology".... Hence you are assuming that similarities = ancestry... I am asking you to support this assumption.

 

Why is circular logic allowable to evolutionists?

 

 

For your example. We know that the dog and wolf are related because they are the same species... Yet how do you know that similarities equate to ancestry for other organisms... say fish to amphibians to reptiles etc, these are all different. What experiments have been done to confirm this assumption?

 

 

I can't speak for others, but I'd interpret the request for a limit to change as a request to show that there's something which stops an organism from accumulating an increasing number and type of differences from it's ancestors. Because it's obvious that there are size and shape limitations on organisms, it wouldn't make sense to ask for a limit on change if size/shape was what was meant.

 

You don't need to interpret anything, just do as I asked before...

 

Quote

Evolutionists claim that evolutionary change occurred so it is their responsibility to demonstrate that the change they assume occurred isn't hindered by the limits we observe. You are arguing from the assumption that evolution is a fact.

I have explained this to you over and over, you are asking me to prove a negative. The fact remains that we observe limits to change, it is the evolutionist's responsibility to demonstrate how the change they propose occurred is not hindered by these limits. Simply ignoring the problem, or assuming that the problem doesn't apply is not ACTUAL science, its being close-minded.
In years past it used to be that evolutionists would claim that if Creationists could demonstrate a limit to change then evolution would be false, now that the limit has been demonstrated its being claimed that we need to demonstrate how the limit applies to evolution as well...

 

 

 

You're interpretation twists what I asked into proving a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did I mention lions and tigers? However how does this have anything to do with the fact that the definition of species is so ambiguous and how that reflects on an evolutionist's ability to identify NEW species... Nice try at a red herring, but please read what I write and try and respond to what I write, rather than going around it.

 

 

 

And?

 

You were complaining that animals capable of interbreeding were classified as different species. I gave you an example where most people would accept such a classification.

 

The person who popularized the Biological Species Concept that you want to use suggested that it should only apply to natural breeding. This is consistent with the statement I made originally that given mechanical incompatibility, a classification of a new species was possible.

 

 

 

 

Exchanging a benefit for a deficiency somewhere else.... THAT is what a trade-off is... You are "forgetting" that a trade-off incurs a deficiency somewhere else.

 

 

 

Wrong once again because you are "forgetting" that a trade-off incurs a deficiency, a cost... In order to keep progressing a trait (over-expression), there is additional cost (trade-off) which eventually add up to outweigh the benefits of over-expression of the trait. Its sad that I already mentioned this before, I guess that also got "forgotten"...

 

Where did you get the idea that evolution involves a trait continuing to progress to the point that it outweighs the benefits of having it?

 

 

 

 

Yet more blatant lies

 

Just like how you were wrong in claiming that I never stated "trade offs" or that my premises are (somehow) red herrings or... etc etc etc etc...

 

I suggest you have a good read of this thread, or perhaps the posts I asked you to read... Yet you make comments to post #739 meaning you did read it, yet if you did then why state your lie above, because if you had read it then you'd have seen that I gave many more examples... Oh my...

 

Post #739 This was one I asked you to go read!

 

 

 

 

Post #763

 

 

 

Post # 766

 

 

Post #770

 

 

So much more than just the fish example... The Persian cat and what I observed personally are much more objective and thus stronger smile.png

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info, it seems my fish example was as weak as I figured it was, it is somewhat hypothetical. I came up with it in first year Biology at uni lol.

 

However the Persian cat and observed examples in agriculture are not hypothetical, which was why I opened this line of argumentation with them in post #739 (which I asked you to go read).

 

 

I said none of your examples related to the theory of evolution. The examples you listed were:

 

Persion cats noses - The more 'squashed' the nose is the more risk the cat is with these health problems, some have problems breathing properly.

Increased ribs = more meat but when the back is too long it starts to droop in mid-long term

Angle of hoch = More angle means easier mating but leads to increased risk of becoming lame, less angle is more sturdy but jumping for mating is more problematic

Increased size = More meat / Powerful / Defense however being too large leads to issues with pregnancy as well as leg issues / lameness

Larger heads = neck problems, issues with child birth

Longer necks = Strain for heart to pump blood to head / neck issues with joints / support

Larger body = Issues with legs and heart to pump blood to increased body mass

 

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with noses like a persian cat?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with ribs too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with a bad hoch angle?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors that were too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with heads too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with necks too long?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with a body too large?

 

Which of your examples relates to changes actually proposed by the theory of evolution?

 

Um yeah you have.

 

Ah the ad hoc hypothesis at work wink.png Care to give examples of these other mechanisms?

 

(Pro-tip: Genetic drift selects against minority changes regardless of selection benefits)

 

 

Genetic drift.

 

Selection typically refers to how successful an organism is. When a characteristic is selected against it usually means that having that characteristic makes the organism less likely to reproduce.

Genetic drift doesn't select against minority changes. An organism with a rare allelle subject only to genetic drift has exactly the same chance of reproduction as an organism with the majority allelle.

 

The chance of fixation of a trait via genetic drift is the same as it's frequency in the population, but that's not the same as being selected against because each member of the population has the same chance of passing on their traits.

 

 

Ummm if there was net change then that would demonstrate that the change wasn't limited... Since there is now net change beyond what the organism used to be.... It means evolution is possible because net change can occur and thus accumulate...

 

 

If there is no net change then there is nothing to accumulate towards becoming a new organism... Its simply oscillating within the variances of the same traits that the organism already has.

 

This is what Creation predicts and this is what is observed... Sorry.

 

IF the drought had been permanent, (when has that ever happened in human history?) then yes there would be permanent change, however in cases of permanent environmental change it generally leads to extinction.... So when the environmental pressure is great enough to actually cause something to change, (and is held at long enough periods to allow fixation to occur) it ends up killing the population.... Kinda debunks evolution being based on environmental changes huh wink.png

 

So you are assuming permanent environmental changes which we have never observed as a way to justify belief in evolution, sounds like a great amount of faith is being used here.

 

Umm, because net change occurring over time is what you assume as per common descent / evolution.....
Do you think something that has zero net-change can become something new? Please think about this for a bit.
No net change over time = always being the same thing over time = no evolution to new organisms

 

 

 

1- "Ummm if there was net change then that would demonstrate that the change wasn't limited... Since there is now net change beyond what the organism used to be.... It means evolution is possible because net change can occur and thus accumulate..."

 

2 - "IF the drought had been permanent, (when has that ever happened in human history?) then yes there would be permanent change, however in cases of permanent environmental change it generally leads to extinction.... So when the environmental pressure is great enough to actually cause something to change, (and is held at long enough periods to allow fixation to occur) it ends up killing the population.... Kinda debunks evolution being based on environmental changes huh wink.png:"

 

 

From 1 you are saying that if net change occurs then that's change beyond what an organism used to be and if net change occurs evolution is possible.

From 2 you are saying that long term selection pressure is capable of causing net change or extinction

 

So all I need to do to show that evolution is possible is show that long term climate changes exist and that not everything subject to them went extinct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age - does a few million years of ice age count as long term climate change? Did life persist through the ice ages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#History, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Flora_and_fauna - does 40,000 years count as long term climate change?

 

 

 

 

Does it matter? That is your job friend... If you want to claim evolution occurs then you need to demonstrate that the limits we observe doesn't conflict with your beliefs... (I've already explained this to you multiple times now).

 

You are the one claiming evolution exists, so YOU are the one who is responsible for supporting that claim.

 

Evidence... How do you know this? As I have told you multiple times, you simply cannot ignore the issue and assume that it doesn't apply.

 

You need to demonstrate that evolutionary change is not infringed by these limits we observe. If not then how do we know that the change you assume occurred isn't infringed by these limits? Simply assuming they aren't is NOT scientific.

I need to demonstrate that there are no known cases where evolutionary change violates these limits?

 

Ok. Here's a list of all the cases known where evolutionary change violates the limits on what is morphologically possible. Feel free to fill in any I missed:

...

 

 

However when you consider the basic tenets of common descent then over-expression is what is assumed... In order to have an organism become a different organism something needs to change, therefore something needs to be over-expressed beyond the "normal" capabilities of what the original organism was... Therefore ALL organisms which evolutionists claim are derived from common descent are caused from over-expression.

 

Perhaps look at this picture and tell me that the changes being assumed are not over-expressions

 

EvolutionFishMammal.jpg

 

"Over-expression = Detriment = Death / Selected against"

"In order to keep progressing a trait (over-expression), there is additional cost (trade-off) which eventually add up to outweigh the benefits of over-expression of the trait"

"The more a trait is pronounced the more detrimental it becomes meaning there is a point where the benefits are outweighed by the detriment"

 

You've given contradictory definitions of overexpressed. On one hand you say that overexpression = death. In another case you say that overexpression is detrimental only after a certain point, before that point it isn't.

If overexpression means outside the species norms of the ancestral species, then all of the differences are overexpressed.

If overexpression means detrimental, then there's nothing to indicate overexpression. All of those animals actually existed, so the traits they have can't have been lethal to them. I'm not aware of any findings that the changes required to transition between these animals would be detrimental.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I see a concentrated effort to try and overlook the fact that YOU are the one that needs to give evidence for the changes evolutionists assume, and how these changes are not impeded by the limits we observe.. I have done my share of evidence, I've demonstrated that there are limits, its now your job as an evolutionist to try and explain how evolution can still occur despite these limits we observe.

 

You were complaining that animals capable of interbreeding were classified as different species. I gave you an example where most people would accept such a classification.

 

Was I? All I did was demonstrate how the definition of species was ambigious (which you have just demonstrated also), and how this ambiguity undercuts the evolutionist's own efforts to claim X "evolved" into Y... How can they make that call when their standards of definition are as fuzzy as they are...

 

All you have done is attempted to conflate the issue, yet you've demonstrated another example of how the species definition is fuzzy not defined.

 

The person who popularized the Biological Species Concept that you want to use suggested that it should only apply to natural breeding. This is consistent with the statement I made originally that given mechanical incompatibility, a classification of a new species was possible.
Can you give a quote or source to back this up?... Because it contradicts my tertiary Biological studies on the issue.... from evolutionists themselves!....

 

Where did you get the idea that evolution involves a trait continuing to progress to the point that it outweighs the benefits of having it?
Well if you've bothered to make the effort of reading and comprehending my posts you'd already know....
1- Evolutionist beliefs in common descent assume that organisms derived from a common ancestor
2- In order for this to occur organisms would have to change into different forms, (see the skeleton picture I gave you)
3- Large-scale structural changes in organisms is limited as seen in domesticated animals (which I thoroughly documented before, and which you completely ignored earlier).
4- Therefore wouldn't the changes evolutionists also propose also be limited? If we observe limits in reality then.....
As has been admitted nobody can breed a pig as big as a house... THERE IS A LIMIT.

 

I said none of your examples related to the theory of evolution. The examples you listed were:

 

Persion cats noses - The more 'squashed' the nose is the more risk the cat is with these health problems, some have problems breathing properly.

Increased ribs = more meat but when the back is too long it starts to droop in mid-long term

Angle of hoch = More angle means easier mating but leads to increased risk of becoming lame, less angle is more sturdy but jumping for mating is more problematic

Increased size = More meat / Powerful / Defense however being too large leads to issues with pregnancy as well as leg issues / lameness

Larger heads = neck problems, issues with child birth

Longer necks = Strain for heart to pump blood to head / neck issues with joints / support

Larger body = Issues with legs and heart to pump blood to increased body mass

 

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with noses like a persian cat?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with ribs too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with a bad hoch angle?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors that were too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with heads too big?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with necks too long?

Which animals does the theory of evolution suggest had ancestors with a body too large?

 

Which of your examples relates to changes actually proposed by the theory of evolution?

 

You are conducting the same mistake Macten conducted, (although you already did this many times)...

 

I already pointed this out to you MULTIPLE TIMES... Please try and understand this time.

 

 

 

Mac... Please read my post... It seems you simply want to ignore what is in front of your face.

 

 

 

You admitted that the over-expression would not be selected for in the first place if natural selection was involved... THIS IS MY POINT!

 

If the over-expression is not selected for then how can evolutionists claim that natural selection lead to change beyond said limits....

 

Seriously you are arguing a position after you already conceded the point...

 

Here I will try again, (please follow this, this time).

 

 

Premise 1: Over-expression of a trait leads to detrimental effects...

 

This premise is already supported by the evidence I have given and even NA admitted to it being correct. Additionally it is an observed phenomena by Biologists who have mentioned it in books and papers...

 

Premise 2: Natural selection selects against detrimental effects

 

This is basic. Evolutionists would agree to this...

 

Conclusion: Natural selection selects against the over-expression of traits due to the detrimental effects they cause.

 

Conclusion 2: Meaning over-expression of traits will not occur naturally in the first-place.

 

Conclusion 3: Hence demonstrating a limit to change.

 

 

Deductive argument = If the premises are correct and the logic is correct then the conclusion follows necessarily.. In that you cannot argue against the conclusion..

 

Try and find fault with the argument if you want however from my viewpoint its water-tight.

 

 

You cannot demand for examples of over-expression because natural selection would select against them... THAT IS THE POINT! Hence to ask for this is to ask me to prove a negative, which in most cases is impossible and illogical to ask...

 

This is why it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how the changes you assume occurred are not hindered by the limits we observe, simply ignoring this doesn't make the issue go away... It only makes you look the fool.

 

 

 

Genetic drift.
Obviously you ignored my pro-tip...

 

Selection typically refers to how successful an organism is. When a characteristic is selected against it usually means that having that characteristic makes the organism less likely to reproduce.

Genetic drift doesn't select against minority changes. An organism with a rare allelle subject only to genetic drift has exactly the same chance of reproduction as an organism with the majority allelle.

 

The chance of fixation of a trait via genetic drift is the same as it's frequency in the population, but that's not the same as being selected against because each member of the population has the same chance of passing on their traits.

 

Wrong, totally wrong... Perhaps you should provide some sources... Or perhaps you didn't because if you did it would demonstrate how you were incorrect on this...

 

"Genetic drift describes random fluctuations in the numbers of gene variants in a population. Genetic drift takes place when the occurrence of variant forms of a gene, called alleles, increases and decreases by chance over time. These variations in the presence of alleles are measured as changes in allele frequencies.

 

Typically, genetic drift occurs in small populations, where infrequently occurring alleles face a greater chance of being lost. Once it begins, genetic drift will continue until the involved allele is either lost by a population or until it is the only allele present in a population at a particular locus. Both possibilities decrease the genetic diversity of a population. Genetic drift is common after population bottlenecks, which are events that drastically decrease the size of a population. In these cases, genetic drift can result in the loss of rare alleles and decrease the gene pool. Genetic drift can cause a new population to be genetically distinct from its original population, which has led to the hypothesis that genetic drift plays a role in the evolution of new species."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/random-genetic-drift-genetic-drift-201

 

 

Genetic drift as I mentioned in my Pro-tip, selects against the minority... Want to know why? Because its simply random removal of genes... Genetic drift accounts for "the randomness of life". Now lets say a population has 20 copies of one gene and 1 copy of another. Under random removal the 1 copy gene will be removed because once that copy is removed that is it... Each gene copy has the same chance of removal which means the 20 copy has 19 chances more than the 1 copy gene, ergo it selects against the minority...

 

Now considering that change via mutations are originally going to be a single copy, single copy of a mutation... Unless you assume entire populations are affected by the same mutation, then genetic drift would be selecting against this change.

 

 

The chance of fixation of a trait via genetic drift is the same as it's frequency in the population, but that's not the same as being selected against because each member of the population has the same chance of passing on their traits.
Um yes it is.... If fixation is linked to its frequency then the minority will be selected against by definition... You've posted a self-contradicting claim... Good for you wink.png

 

1- "Ummm if there was net change then that would demonstrate that the change wasn't limited... Since there is now net change beyond what the organism used to be.... It means evolution is possible because net change can occur and thus accumulate..."

 

2 - "IF the drought had been permanent, (when has that ever happened in human history?) then yes there would be permanent change, however in cases of permanent environmental change it generally leads to extinction.... So when the environmental pressure is great enough to actually cause something to change, (and is held at long enough periods to allow fixation to occur) it ends up killing the population.... Kinda debunks evolution being based on environmental changes huh wink.png:"

 

 

From 1 you are saying that if net change occurs then that's change beyond what an organism used to be and if net change occurs evolution is possible.

From 2 you are saying that long term selection pressure is capable of causing net change or extinction

 

So all I need to do to show that evolution is possible is show that long term climate changes exist and that not everything subject to them went extinct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age - does a few million years of ice age count as long term climate change? Did life persist through the ice ages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#History, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Flora_and_fauna - does 40,000 years count as long term climate change?

 

Can you please quote me in full... Or is that too hard to do?

 

1- Where has net change been observed? All we see are oscillating changes...

 

2- Have you seen a permanent drought?

 

How would you know that there was "millions of years" of an ice age?... Or is this yet more speculation and assumptions?

 

Perhaps you can explain your links, this is a forum after all.

 

 

 

I need to demonstrate that there are no known cases where evolutionary change violates these limits? Not what I said... You and the readers know this.. So why act silly like this?

 

Ok. Here's a list of all the cases known where evolutionary change violates the limits on what is morphologically possible. Feel free to fill in any I missed: attempt to shift burden of proof... again...

...

 

No you need to demonstrate how evolutionary change, the changes you claim occured, are not limited by the limits we observe in reality...

 

You want to claim evolution happened, then it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how those changes are not limited. Period.

 

I am getting tired of your attempts to try and shift the burden of proof... YOU are the one who claims evolution occurred, so YOU are the one who needs to support it.

 

 

"Over-expression = Detriment = Death / Selected against"

"In order to keep progressing a trait (over-expression), there is additional cost (trade-off) which eventually add up to outweigh the benefits of over-expression of the trait"

"The more a trait is pronounced the more detrimental it becomes meaning there is a point where the benefits are outweighed by the detriment"

 

You've given contradictory definitions of overexpressed. On one hand you say that overexpression = death.

 

Ummm if you bothered to actually READ what you copied and pasted above I never said what you claim I did...

 

I said

 

"Over-expression = Detriment = Death / Selected against"

"The more a trait is pronounced the more detrimental it becomes meaning there is a point where the benefits are outweighed by the detriment"

 

 

NOT

 

overexpression = Death

 

It is patently absurd that you think that this is a rational and well-thought out response.. You don't think that people can't read a few lines above your claim, and see what you say is wrong?

 

You've given contradictory definitions of overexpressed. On one hand you say that overexpression = death. In another case you say that overexpression is detrimental only after a certain point, before that point it isn't.

 

No-where have I said over-expression = death, I said it leads to detriment which leads to being selected against.... which is death... that is how natural selection works.... detriment = selected against (death)... Just so you know when something is being selected against its not like a democracy or a vote or something, its a less-violent way to say that the organism dies more likely than its peers.

 

 

 

If overexpression means outside the species norms of the assumed ancestral species, then all of the differences are overexpressed.

 

That is why its a problem for evolution... yay you're getting it now smile.pngsmile.pngsmile.png

 

 

If overexpression means outside the species norms of the ancestral species, then all of the differences are overexpressed.

If overexpression means detrimental, then there's nothing to indicate overexpression. All of those animals actually existed, so the traits they have can't have been lethal to them.

 

Ah and here you've just demonstrated that you are arguing from the position that evolution is true...

 

You are assuming that what you claim to be ancestors actually are ancestors... and then claiming that because they are ancestors then the changes they endured must not have been detrimental... What if I don't grant your assumption of there being ancestors? Then your house of cards falls over.

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate how you know these organisms really are the ancestors of the organisms you claim they are ancestors of... Rather than just assuming they are and then basing your "logic" on that assumption.

 

EDIT: When you assume what you are trying to prove, that is the 'begging the question' fallacy... Why do evolutionists love to use this fallacy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hang on you said that there was only one difference between natural and artificial selection and that was it. I demonstrated that there were more differences than the one you proposed, ergo you were wrong... Why not admit this? I clearly demonstrated how you were incorrect earlier... or are we seeing narcissistic tendencies?
The differences you mentioned were all related to what determined reproductive success. I'd consider them all as part of the 'who/what determines reproductive success' or the source of the selection criteria. However, upon rereading it I can see where that wouldn't come across so I'll reword it. The difference between artificial and natural selection is whether humans or nature, which includes other animals, determines which animals breed. That covers 1 since intelligence is inherent in idea of humans determining which animals breed. It covers 2 because the environment includes other animals, and it covers 3 because it accounts for the environment.
If humans and nature are selecting for similar traits, the results of artificial and natural selection should be similar with a potential difference in rate if the intensity of selection is different.
Sigh.. Anyone who claims that natural selection was the cause of the assumed evolutionary changes...
Here I'll try and spell it out.
If artificial selection is stronger than natural selection, (for reasons I gave earlier).. and what we observe is artificial selection being limited by trade-offs... Then on what basis can you claim that natural selection is not affected by the limits of trade-offs?
You are assuming that the weaker (natural) selection can accomplish what the stronger (artificial) selection cannot, hence the analogy of weaker man lifting what the stronger man cannot. This is basic logic my friend

I'm not saying that natural selection isn't affected by limits. I'm saying you haven't established that evolution requires a violation of those limits. I'm asking you to provide justification for your idea that the theory of evolution requires changes that are impossible according to the theory.

 

 

Circular reasoning strikes again. I suggest you read this thread, (yes the entirety of it), because it stands as a testament to how evolutionists use circular reasoning (begging the question fallacy), like you are right now.

 

I asked you to support how you know that similarities = ancestry... Yet here you are assuming similarities = ancestry with claiming "known relationships"...

 

How do you know of this "known relationship"? You assume that similarities = ancestry and then claim that the more similar are related...

I was under the impression that even creationists accepted that some animals are related to each other with the concept of kinds. Is there any relationship between any animals that you would consider known or correct?

 

 

But hang on... Is this how you support the assumption of similarities = ancestry... by assuming what you set out to support is true... Hence circular logic.

 

However at the end of the day this is not an experiment. I asked you for an experiment, not people making conjectures / assumptions.

 

 

That was an experiment. Comparing a result to the expected result is how ideas are tested.

 

 

 

"Group them by similarities in DNA or morphology".... Hence you are assuming that similarities = ancestry... I am asking you to support this assumption.

 

Why is circular logic allowable to evolutionists?

 

 

For your example. We know that the dog and wolf are related because they are the same species... Yet how do you know that similarities equate to ancestry for other organisms... say fish to amphibians to reptiles etc, these are all different. What experiments have been done to confirm this assumption?

 

Fish and amphibians appear to follow the same fundamentals of biology as dogs and wolves. They have DNA, inherit characteristics, experience mutations, etc. That's why we expect the same techniques to work for fish and amphibians as dogs and wolves.

 

Experiments don't confirm ideas, they support or refute.

 

 

You don't need to interpret anything, just do as I asked before...

 

Quote

Evolutionists claim that evolutionary change occurred so it is their responsibility to demonstrate that the change they assume occurred isn't hindered by the limits we observe. You are arguing from the assumption that evolution is a fact.

I have explained this to you over and over, you are asking me to prove a negative. The fact remains that we observe limits to change, it is the evolutionist's responsibility to demonstrate how the change they propose occurred is not hindered by these limits. Simply ignoring the problem, or assuming that the problem doesn't apply is not ACTUAL science, its being close-minded.
In years past it used to be that evolutionists would claim that if Creationists could demonstrate a limit to change then evolution would be false, now that the limit has been demonstrated its being claimed that we need to demonstrate how the limit applies to evolution as well...

 

 

 

You're interpretation twists what I asked into proving a negative.

There are no known cases where the theory of evolution is hindered by the limits you have suggested. Without a particular trait and an organism it's impossible to be more specific since your question is asking for a universal negative to be proved. If you have a particular example of a trait and an organism it could be possible to explore how variations in the trait would affect physical abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences you mentioned were all related to what determined reproductive success. I'd consider them all as part of the 'who/what determines reproductive success' or the source of the selection criteria. However, upon rereading it I can see where that wouldn't come across so I'll reword it.

 

Now you are attempting to save face again... First you claimed that you never said it was the same now this. Here is what you said

The only difference between natural and artificial selection is the source of the selection criteria. Given the same selection criteria they are capable of exactly the same things.

You said that the only difference between them was the source of selection... This means that the rest would be... the same.. Because that is the ONLY difference....
I demonstrated 3 points where natural selection is NOT the same as artificial selection...
1- Artifical selection incorporates intelligence in the selection methodology
2- Natural selection has cheaters whereas artificial is strictly controlled
3- Natural selection is based on environmental factors which are whimsical (and change so often that fixation cannot occur anyway).
We can remove the third point since that is to do with the selection criteria which you already made a provision for. Meaning you were incorrect on the other two points, meaning natural selection is not the same as artificial selection, in fact due to the control artificial selection is MUCH stronger than natural selection meaning if we observe limits on artificial selection then we certainly would see limits imposed on natural selection since it is weaker than artificial selection...
An analogy. A bag of weights is too hard for a muscular person to lift, do you think a weaker person can lift the same bag?... See its basic logic

 

so I'll reword it. The difference between artificial and natural selection is whether humans or nature, which includes other animals, determines which animals breed. That covers 1 since intelligence is inherent in idea of humans determining which animals breed. It covers 2 because the environment includes other animals, and it covers 3 because it accounts for the environment.

 

Oh great you changed what you said in order to fit what I just corrected you on.... Meaning you were wrong before, why change it otherwise?... Why deny this? Seriously you're just digging deeper and deeper by not simply admitting that you made a simple mistake... If you'd have done that earlier we wouldn't be making a big deal of it...

 

This is known as the Streisand Effect...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f0K6glgQJw

 

Yet I still wonder how does it cover one, one ( which was the fact that traits can be intelligently selected for on the basis of analysis... not the simple strawman version you mentioned) and two?

 

 

 

If humans and nature are selecting for similar traits, the results of artificial and natural selection should be similar with a potential difference in rate if the intensity of selection is different.
As I told you with artificial selection humans can incorporate intelligent selection based on analysis therefore it can do what natural selection simply cannot... Because randomness doesn't plan... Surely you already knew this, surely.

 

I'm not saying that natural selection isn't affected by limits. I'm saying you haven't established that evolution requires a violation of those limits. I'm asking you to provide justification for your idea that the theory of evolution requires changes that are impossible according to the theory.

 

I've already established that limits exist, that is all I need to do... IT is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how the changes YOU assume occurs are not impeded by these limits...

 

By assuming that evolution occurs without demonstrating how it is not affected by these limits YOU ARE assuming that natural selection is not affected by these limits... No amount of denial can change that buddy.

 

Its ironic that years ago evolutionists used to ask, to simply demonstrate a limit to change.... Now that such a limit has been found they now demand that we demonstrate how it applies to evolution...

 

 

However come to think of it I have already demonstrated how it applies to evolution..... Please READ this post

 

 

You need to demonstrate that evolutionary change is not infringed by these limits we observe. If not then how do we know that the change you assume occurred isn't infringed by these limits? Simply assuming they aren't is NOT scientific.

 

However when you consider the basic tenets of common descent then over-expression is what is assumed... In order to have an organism become a different organism something needs to change, therefore something needs to be over-expressed beyond the "normal" capabilities of what the original organism was... Therefore ALL organisms which evolutionists claim are derived from common descent are caused from over-expression.

 

Perhaps look at this picture and tell me that the changes being assumed are not over-expressions

 

EvolutionFishMammal.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was under the impression that even creationists accepted that some animals are related to each other with the concept of kinds. Is there any relationship between any animals that you would consider known or correct?

 

How does this relate to your use of circular reasoning? Or was this an attempt at a red herring to try and cover your use of false "logic"...

 

 

That was an experiment. Comparing a result to the expected result is how ideas are tested.

 

Can you post any form of support for this claim... I'd love to see an actual scientist try and claim that comparisons of something is an experiment... Statistic analysis is not an experiment.... Its simply analysis!

 

However as we see here your ability to define what an experiment is seems to be lacking ;)

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6055&p=108440

 

Fish and amphibians appear to follow the same fundamentals of biology as dogs and wolves. They have DNA, inherit characteristics, experience mutations, etc. That's why we expect the same techniques to work for fish and amphibians as dogs and wolves.

 

Really... So you think that because members of the same organism are similar therefore you can extrapolate this to anything.... This is called the fallacy of hasty generalisation... (Pro-tip: Its a fallacy, fallacies are fallacious).

 

Experiments don't confirm ideas, they support or refute.
Semantics.... You and the readers know what is being said.
There are no known cases where the theory of evolution is hindered by the limits you have suggested.

 

Umm yeah there is...

 

 

 

You need to demonstrate that evolutionary change is not infringed by these limits we observe. If not then how do we know that the change you assume occurred isn't infringed by these limits? Simply assuming they aren't is NOT scientific.

 

However when you consider the basic tenets of common descent then over-expression is what is assumed... In order to have an organism become a different organism something needs to change, therefore something needs to be over-expressed beyond the "normal" capabilities of what the original organism was... Therefore ALL organisms which evolutionists claim are derived from common descent are caused from over-expression.

 

Perhaps look at this picture and tell me that the changes being assumed are not over-expressions

 

EvolutionFishMammal.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without a particular trait and an organism it's impossible to be more specific since your question is asking for a universal negative to be proved.

 

Hang on YOU were asking me to prove a negative!... I repeatedly pointed that out to you over the course of a few pages...

 

All I am asking is for you to demonstrate how evolution... the thing YOU claim is real... is not limited by the limitations we observe...

 

YOU claim evolution is real therefore YOU are required to demonstrate how what you claim to be REAL is in fact REAL by not contradicting with these limitations we observe in reality..

The same can be said for anything... If I claimed that I can fly to the moon with my magic gumboots it is MY responsibility to give evidence for that... Not for me to say that you need to disprove my claim. I have lectured you on this many many many many many times, and you still ignore and make the same claims...
Really dude, perhaps if you gave some coherent reasoning for why my requests for you to support what you claim is true are unrealistic... then perhaps we can have a rational conversation. However continually parroting the same debunked argument despite multiple objections is getting old, and only makes you look the fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1- Artifical selection incorporates intelligence in the selection methodology
2- Natural selection has cheaters whereas artificial is strictly controlled
3- Natural selection is based on environmental factors which are whimsical (and change so often that fixation cannot occur anyway).

 

Gilbo all three of these points are questionable, if not completely wrong.

 

1) Artificial does incorporate intelligence - awareness of the mechanism of natural selection. That is genetic variation and the directional selection of it. Natural selection occurs in nature whether or not humans measure it. Humans are also a agent of selection consciously and sub-consciously. This is a complete non-point. YEC is obsessed with this pseudophilosophical quackery about "intelligence". It doesnt mean anything! Humans are intelligent therefore god created everything?

 

2) Cheating is usually used in regards to mating liklihood and game theory. Cheating is and is not a successful strategy. Maybe i have missed something?

 

3) Natural selection is based on biotic and abiotic factors that are patently not whimsical. The irony is that you are an animal too Gilbo. Do you ever think about where your food comes from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gilbo all three of these points are questionable, if not completely wrong.

 

1) Artificial does incorporate intelligence - awareness of the mechanism of natural selection. That is genetic variation and the directional selection of it. Natural selection occurs in nature whether or not humans measure it. Humans are also a agent of selection consciously and sub-consciously. This is a complete non-point. YEC is obsessed with this pseudophilosophical quackery about "intelligence". It doesnt mean anything! Humans are intelligent therefore god created everything?

 

2) Cheating is usually used in regards to mating liklihood and game theory. Cheating is and is not a successful strategy. Maybe i have missed something?

 

3) Natural selection is based on biotic and abiotic factors that are patently not whimsical. The irony is that you are an animal too Gilbo. Do you ever think about where your food comes from?

 

It is interesting that in your reply you first state that I am incorrect "completely wrong", yet in your responses you are ambigious enough to pose doubt on your own claims, "Maybe I have missed something?"

 

1- So you agree that artificial selection does include intelligence, pertaining to the collection of data of traits about individuals and then analysis and selection on what individuals would be best suited... IF you had read the full post you are quoting from and / or the discussion this was a part of you would have read this...

 

So since you agreed that artifical selection does include intelligence then why claim that I am "completely wrong"... Self contradiction much?

 

Also IF you had bothered to read the context of what I stated you would see that I was not proposing

 

" It doesnt mean anything! Humans are intelligent therefore god created everything?"

 

I was simply demonstrating how artificial selection is much different to natural selection and gave 3 points for your fellow atheist to consider since it was stated that the ONLY difference between the two was the source of the selection... Again, IF you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have known this, and therefore should have realised that your extranenous comments are a red herring due to being completely out of context.

 

 

2- I think you have missed something? Perhaps... the plot ;)

 

As stated before I was simply demonstrating 3 points where artificial selection differs to natural selection... Natural selection has a random element which includes cheating. Artifiical selection is MUCH more controlled (coming from a farm that undertook these practices, I know this intimately).

 

I never said it was a strategy; so once again, a question which would have been solved if you had simply read the context.

 

3- Huh? How in the world does this refute the fact that natural selection IS whimsical due to being based on, in part, environmental factors... Which are RANDOM...

 

Artificial selection is not random like this, its based on humans selecting things in a non-random fashion... Hence another difference.

 

 

 

Hewy, this entire post has been borne by your inability to read the context of the discussion. Next time, please read the posts in full and the discussion of which they are a part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is interesting that in your reply you first state that I am incorrect "completely wrong", yet in your responses you are ambigious enough to pose doubt on your own claims, "Maybe I have missed something?"

 

1- So you agree that artificial selection does include intelligence, pertaining to the collection of data of traits about individuals and then analysis and selection on what individuals would be best suited... IF you had read the full post you are quoting from and / or the discussion this was a part of you would have read this...

 

So since you agreed that artifical selection does include intelligence then why claim that I am "completely wrong"... Self contradiction much?

 

Also IF you had bothered to read the context of what I stated you would see that I was not proposing

 

" It doesnt mean anything! Humans are intelligent therefore god created everything?"

 

I was simply demonstrating how artificial selection is much different to natural selection and gave 3 points for your fellow atheist to consider since it was stated that the ONLY difference between the two was the source of the selection... Again, IF you had bothered to actually read my posts you would have known this, and therefore should have realised that your extranenous comments are a red herring due to being completely out of context.

 

 

2- I think you have missed something? Perhaps... the plot wink.png

 

As stated before I was simply demonstrating 3 points where artificial selection differs to natural selection... Natural selection has a random element which includes cheating. Artifiical selection is MUCH more controlled (coming from a farm that undertook these practices, I know this intimately).

 

I never said it was a strategy; so once again, a question which would have been solved if you had simply read the context.

 

3- Huh? How in the world does this refute the fact that natural selection IS whimsical due to being based on, in part, environmental factors... Which are RANDOM...

 

Artificial selection is not random like this, its based on humans selecting things in a non-random fashion... Hence another difference.

 

 

 

Hewy, this entire post has been borne by your inability to read the context of the discussion. Next time, please read the posts in full and the discussion of which they are a part of.

 

Gilbo,

 

1) i dont think you understand what i meant. you think "inteliigence" means something when it doesnt. it just means humans are smart enough to have an awareness of the main mechanism of evolution.....

 

2) I dont have time to read all of the posts. What do you mean by "cheating?"

 

3) Environmental factors are not whimsical, they are very important. They may seem whimsical to modern-day anglo speaking humans....that doesn't mean its right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have time to read all of the posts.

 

This pretty much sums up what I was critiquing you for... Hewy, if you did bother to read the context of the conversation you would see that what you are claiming are all red herrings, additionally you would see that I am correct. You have said nothing which demonstrates otherwise, rather you now ask questions which could have been answered if you bothered to read to context of the conversation...

 

Additionally, how foolish do you think it is to reply to a post and not know the context it is being discussed in?...

 

Yet it seems we have yet another Streisand effect sufferer, since all you had to do was admit that you made a mistake and life can go on... Instead you are conducting the same mistake made by Al above.

 

1) i dont think you understand what i meant. you think "inteliigence" means something when it doesnt. it just means humans are smart enough to have an awareness of the main mechanism of evolution.....

 

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said that your questions here are a red herring to what was originally discussed... As I said before, (please READ my post above), I was simply giving 3 additional points where artificial selection differs to natural selection. Since Al said that the only difference was that one is natural and one is artificial... That is it!

 

Artificial selection has the additional tool of intelligence led analysis of data pertaining to different factors meaning optimal selections can be made from such analysis... Natural selection cannot do such analysis and thus this a difference.

 

I am not sure how you can squeeze your claims into this...

 

I think intelligence means what the dictionary claims it does, who are you to say otherwise?

 

How does ARTIFICIAL SELECTION have anything to do with humans understanding evolution? What about agricultural practices BEFORE Darwin?.... Are you implying that artificial selection is based on evolution? Surely you understand that Darwin himself used artificial selection as rhetoric for his hypothesis of evolution, therefore to say that artificial selection is based on evolution, and then when Darwin used it as arguments for evolution would mean Darwin was reasoning in a circle... Unless of course artificial selection is NOT based on evolution, which of course makes sense since selection practices in agriculture predate beliefs about evolution...

 

Ergo you are incorrect.

 

2) I dont have time to read all of the posts. What do you mean by "cheating?"

 

Then you shouldn't have time to post... As my father used to tell me, if you are going to do something get it done right the first time.

 

Animals cheat the selection system. Patriarchal societies based on selection can still have an under-achiever sneak in and spread his seed... Artificial selection practices are more rigid since the participants are generally kept away from each other, meaning no cheating can occur...

 

Therefore the additional degrees of control are another difference between natural and artificial selection.

 

 

3) Environmental factors are not whimsical, they are very important. They may seem whimsical to modern-day anglo speaking humans....that doesn't mean its right.

 

Ummm yeah they are whimsical... It seems you do not understand the definition of whimsical, here I will enlighten you ;)

 

whim·si·cal (hwibreve.gifmprime.gifzibreve.gif-kschwa.gifl, wibreve.gifmprime.gif-)

adj.
1. Determined by, arising from, or marked by whim or caprice. See Synonyms at arbitrary.
2. Erratic in behavior or degree of unpredictability: a whimsical personality.
Do you think it is safe to say that the environment, (weather etc) has a degree of unpredictability, and is erratic? If so then it is indeed whimsical.

 

Therefore this is another difference between natural and artificial selection, whereby one is based on a constant selecting pressure and the other is based on a whimsical / arbitrary selecting pressure which can change over time...

 

How does being whimsical mean they are not important, I never said it wasn't important... unless this has come about from your misunderstanding of the definition of whimsical. May I suggest you do some research before you make a reply, double-check the words you do not know or understand and then build your argument, it certainly helps ;)

 

 

What does the "anglo-speaking" humans have to do with anything? Or are you putting this in to sound like you know what you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo,

 

43 pages is alot to read....

 

 

Artificial selection has the additional tool of intelligence led analysis of data pertaining to different factors meaning optimal selections can be made from such analysis... Natural selection cannot do such analysis and thus this a difference.

I am not sure how you can squeeze your claims into this...

I think intelligence means what the dictionary claims it does, who are you to say otherwise?

How does ARTIFICIAL SELECTION have anything to do with humans understanding evolution? What about agricultural practices BEFORE Darwin?.... Are you implying that artificial selection is based on evolution? Surely you understand that Darwin himself used artificial selection as rhetoric for his hypothesis of evolution, therefore to say that artificial selection is based on evolution, and then when Darwin used it as arguments for evolution would mean Darwin was reasoning in a circle... Unless of course artificial selection is NOT based on evolution, which of course makes sense since selection practices in agriculture predate beliefs about evolution...

Ergo you are incorrect.

 

Artifical selection is the same thing as natural selection, we can argue about semantics sure. Artifical selection is sped up selection. That's all there is to it. Agriculture, at an environmental scale, is one giant gene selection experiment. It literally is. Whether people know about genes and evolution patently isn't important.

 

 

Animals cheat the selection system. Patriarchal societies based on selection can still have an under-achiever sneak in and spread his seed... Artificial selection practices are more rigid since the participants are generally kept away from each other, meaning no cheating can occur...

Therefore the additional degrees of control are another difference between natural and artificial selection

 

Nope and nope. Making rather sweeping generalisations about the nature of "cheating" and what it means for evolution. Cheating IS a phenomena, its nothing like as ubiquitous or as powerful as you would have people believe. You've latched onto something from behavioural ecology (typically primate) you think discredits natural selection when it doesn't. What about plants? Do you ever consider the origin of anything that isn't an animal? (plants, fungi...?) I guess they are not important...right? They all look the same....... They don't have mating "choice" at all Gilbo.

 

The only valid point you made is degrees of control - artificial does have more controls because it is a simple, experimental, system. The same principles operate in both circumstances - that is, change in the frequency of genes.

 

 

 

Do you think it is safe to say that the environment, (weather etc) has a degree of unpredictability, and is erratic? If so then it is indeed whimsical.

Therefore this is another difference between natural and artificial selection, whereby one is based on a constant selecting pressure and the other is based on a whimsical / arbitrary selecting pressure which can change over time...

How does being whimsical mean they are not important, I never said it wasn't important... unless this has come about from your misunderstanding of the definition of whimsical. May I suggest you do some research before you make a reply, double-check the words you do not know or understand and then build your argument, it certainly helps wink.png

What does the "anglo-speaking" humans have to do with anything? Or are you putting this in to sound like you know what you are talking about?

 

Gilbo, no i don't because natural selection deals with "climate" and not "weather" - long term trends as opposed to what is happening outside of your window right now. Something that tests reproductive output consistently year after year after year......

 

"Anglo speaking" or anglo centric, westernised, rich, meaning you don't have to worry, or think, about where your next meal is coming from or the natural systems that provide it. That's a natural behaviour too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo,

 

43 pages is alot to read....

 

The current discussion has been very recent, so more like 3 pages... However if you had bothered to actually read the post you were responding to, (as well as quote it properly), your folly can be exposed.

 

 

You said that the only difference between them was the source of selection... This means that the rest would be... the same.. Because that is the ONLY difference....

I demonstrated 3 points where natural selection is NOT the same as artificial selection...
1- Artifical selection incorporates intelligence in the selection methodology
2- Natural selection has cheaters whereas artificial is strictly controlled
3- Natural selection is based on environmental factors which are whimsical (and change so often that fixation cannot occur anyway).
We can remove the third point since that is to do with the selection criteria which you already made a provision for. Meaning you were incorrect on the other two points, meaning natural selection is not the same as artificial selection, in fact due to the control artificial selection is MUCH stronger than natural selection meaning if we observe limits on artificial selection then we certainly would see limits imposed on natural selection since it is weaker than artificial selection...
An analogy. A bag of weights is too hard for a muscular person to lift, do you think a weaker person can lift the same bag?... See its basic logic

 

As I told you with artificial selection humans can incorporate intelligent selection based on analysis therefore it can do what natural selection simply cannot... Because randomness doesn't plan... Surely you already knew this, surely.

 

Oh so what I've been trying to tell you has been correct all along, even from the post you apparently read, and subsequently replied to... I'm simply pointing out the differences between natural selection and artificial selection, that is what the three points you quoted were.... Please, understand this.

 

 

 

I exposed your red herrings about 1 and now you claim it is semantics... Someone is scrapping the bottom of the barrel wink.png

 

You admit that I am correct about the degrees of control, ergo 2 is also correct.

 

And you yourself claim that selection is based on environmental factors... So 3 is also correct.

 

 

So what on Earth are you whinging about?

 

 

 

Artifical selection is the same thing as natural selection, we can argue about semantics sure. Artifical selection is sped up selection. That's all there is to it. Agriculture, at an environmental scale, is one giant gene selection experiment. It literally is. Whether people know about genes and evolution patently isn't important.

 

Hang on so your argument here is to simply claim that the differences I have given are simply semantics, and then ignore them... On what basis can you hope to make this claim. Is that how atheists debate? Ignore opposing arguments by calling them "semantics".

 

The fact that humans can plan and analyze data, the fact that nature cannot, IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection... Indeed it is a difference which constitutes the two as being worlds apart. No amount of ignorance can change this.

 

As I said, (and please respond to this rather than ignore the issue and call it semantics)..

 

Artificial selection has the additional tool of intelligence led analysis of data pertaining to different factors meaning optimal selections can be made from such analysis... Natural selection cannot do such analysis and thus this a difference.

 

Nope and nope. Making rather sweeping generalisations about the nature of "cheating" and what it means for evolution. Cheating IS a phenomena, its nothing like as ubiquitous or as powerful as you would have people believe. You've latched onto something from behavioural ecology (typically primate) you think discredits natural selection when it doesn't. What about plants? Do you ever consider the origin of anything that isn't an animal? (plants, fungi...?) I guess they are not important...right? They all look the same....... They don't have mating "choice" at all Gilbo.

 

Cheaters occur for pretty much all S@xual organisms, so not just primate as you allude to. In fact it was a one of the major topics for my evolution studies at university, hence why I know it IS more of an issue as you attempt to claim. In fact different organisms "evolved" different strategies for cheating...

 

I never said it discredits natural selection... As I said before, (please READ my posts), I am simply giving the differences between natural selection and artificial selection. I have never stated this discredits anything, so once again Hewy we have your arguments based on your inability to read my posts...

 

The only valid point you made is degrees of control - artificial does have more controls because it is a simple, experimental, system. The same principles operate in both circumstances - that is, change in the frequency of genes.

 

So my point was correct..... And there is a difference regarding the amount of control... So what where you complaining about exactly?

 

(So much for claiming my statements were completely wrong, this is two you have admitted were correct wink.png )

 

Gilbo, no i don't because natural selection deals with "climate" and not "weather" - long term trends as opposed to what is happening outside of your window right now. Something that tests reproductive output consistently year after year after year......

 

"Anglo speaking" or anglo centric, westernised, rich, meaning you don't have to worry, or think, about where your next meal is coming from or the natural systems that provide it. That's a natural behaviour too.

 

Now this is interesting... You've cut out the parts where I had to teach you the definition of "whimsical" since your argument was based on your misinterpretation of it... You confused the word whimsical as meaning "not important", at least admit to your mistake, as they say the truth shall set you free wink.png

 

I initially said "environmental factors" so complaints about using the term weather is semantics, you know what I mean... However using the term weather is indeed appropriate otherwise the changes viewed with Darwin's finches would not constitute natural selection, since that was due to a drought... change in weather... Ergo you are complaining about nothing in an attempt to sound knowledgeable on the subject... Sorry friend, its failed just like before where I had to teach you to check the dictionary BEFORE making a post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh so what I've been trying to tell you has been correct all along, even from the post you apparently read, and subsequently replied to... I'm simply pointing out the differences between natural selection and artificial selection, that is what the three points you quoted were.... Please, understand this.

I exposed your red herrings about 1 and now you claim it is semantics... Someone is scrapping the bottom of the barrel wink.png

You admit that I am correct about the degrees of control, ergo 2 is also correct.

And you yourself claim that selection is based on environmental factors... So 3 is also correct.

So what on Earth are you whinging about?

 

Gilbo, what you are incorrect about is using these things as an argument against natural selection. They are arguments for natural selection.

 

 

Hang on so your argument here is to simply claim that the differences I have given are simply semantics, and then ignore them... On what basis can you hope to make this claim. Is that how atheists debate? Ignore opposing arguments by calling them "semantics".

The fact that humans can plan and analyze data, the fact that nature cannot, IS a difference between artificial selection and natural selection... Indeed it is a difference which constitutes the two as being worlds apart. No amount of ignorance can change this.

As I said, (and please respond to this rather than ignore the issue and call it semantics)..

Artificial selection has the additional tool of intelligence led analysis of data pertaining to different factors meaning optimal selections can be made from such analysis... Natural selection cannot do such analysis and thus this a difference.

 

It is semantics. Natural selection has been repeatedly observed in the field.

 

Artificial selection - human directed selection

Natural selection - all other selective pressures.

 

To suggest that there is some fundamental difference between the two - that they are "worlds apart"- is a barefaced falsehood.

 

 

 

Cheaters occur for pretty much all S@xual organisms, so not just primate as you allude to. In fact it was a one of the major topics for my evolution studies at university, hence why I know it IS more of an issue as you attempt to claim. In fact different organisms "evolved" different strategies for cheating...

I never said it discredits natural selection... As I said before, (please READ my posts), I am simply giving the differences between natural selection and artificial selection. I have never stated this discredits anything, so once again Hewy we have your arguments based on your inability to read my posts...

 

Well your kinda heavily implying that it does discredit natural selection see, otherwise, why list differences.

 

 

 

So my point was correct..... And there is a difference regarding the amount of control... So what where you complaining about exactly?

(So much for claiming my statements were completely wrong, this is two you have admitted were correct wink.png )

 

My problem is that by talking about the (obvious) differences between artificial and natural selection you're intentionally implying that there are some fundamental differences between the two when there isn't.

 

 

Now this is interesting... You've cut out the parts where I had to teach you the definition of "whimsical" since your argument was based on your misinterpretation of it... You confused the word whimsical as meaning "not important", at least admit to your mistake, as they say the truth shall set you free wink.png

I initially said "environmental factors" so complaints about using the term weather is semantics, you know what I mean... However using the term weather is indeed appropriate otherwise the changes viewed with Darwin's finches would not constitute natural selection, since that was due to a drought... change in weather... Ergo you are complaining about nothing in an attempt to sound knowledgeable on the subject... Sorry friend, its failed just like before where I had to teach you to check the dictionary BEFORE making a post.

 

I knew what whimsical meant, i couldn't understand why you had used the word. Saying selection pressures are whimsical, when they are not, is wrong.

 

Gilbo, you said weather, so gonna just press a point. Natural selection operates on climatic trends, not weather, because weather is short-lived as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gilbo, what you are incorrect about is using these things as an argument against natural selection. They are arguments for natural selection.

 

As I have told you multiple times.... I am not using these points as an argument against natural selection...

 

I repeat...

 

I AM NOT USING THESE POINTS AS ARGUMENTS AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION....

 

 

I am simply pointing out three differences between natural selection and artificial selection. Please try and understand this, because I am sure the lurkers are sick and tired of hearing me repeat this over and over for you. In fact please re-read my replies to you on this and you will see me state this over and over.

 

 

However this is a far-cry from your first statements claiming I was "completely wrong"... Are you now retracting this claim, since it seems you now agree with these points of difference since you are now claiming they are arguments for natural selection, (though I do not see how differences can be arguments for anything really... not sure where you pulled that one from).

 

 

It is semantics. Natural selection has been repeatedly observed in the field.
Observing selection has NOTHING to do with what I said, and with what you initially claimed was wrong... Please stop dodging the issue...
Please tell me how observing something has anything to do with the differences between natural selection and artificial selection in terms of intelligent analysis of data pertaining to different factors of organism... Otherwise you're invoking red herrings as arguments.

 

Artificial selection - human directed selection

Natural selection - all other selective pressures.

 

To suggest that there is some fundamental difference between the two - that they are "worlds apart"- is a barefaced falsehood.

 

Why? Why is this a barefaced falsehood? Simply saying so does nothing to demonstrate your claim is true...

 

I on the other hand have explained at great depth how these are different, and all you are doing is 'nah uh, you're wrong'...

 

Artificial selection has the additional tool of intelligence led analysis of data pertaining to different factors meaning optimal selections can be made from such analysis... Natural selection cannot do such analysis and thus this a difference.

 

Artificial selection allows for the optimal choice of mating pairs based on different data points. Natural selection does nothing similar to this...

 

For example-

I work in a farm for breeding breeding stock for other farms. I gather data pertaining to the individual's characteristics as well as their mating performance. This data is correlated with previous years to determine averages of reproductive output as well as the characteristics of the progeny being born.

 

Natural selection.... The biggest male wins.... Even if the biggest male may lead to less fertile progeny, or progeny with less desirable characteristics in other areas, etc, etc, etc...

 

 

 

 

Well your kinda heavily implying that it does discredit natural selection see, otherwise, why list differences.

 

How? How does pointing out differences discredit anything? Does me pointing out differences between you and a family member discredit you or a family member?... Please try and consider what you say.

 

IF you had bothered to read the context of the discussion, (which is why I strongly suggested you do so earlier), you'd see that this started as me correcting Al for his statement that the only difference between natural selection and artificial selection is that one is natural and one is artificial... This is a simplistic view, (and one which you share above), which doesn't take into account these other differences...

 

 

My problem is that by talking about the (obvious) differences between artificial and natural selection you're intentionally implying that there are some fundamental differences between the two when there isn't.
Please read what you are saying... First you admit that there are obvious differences between artificial selection and natural selection, then you claim that there none?...
Self-contradiction...
Perhaps you'd care to DEMONSTRATE how the three points are not differences. Rather than just simply saying so... I've demonstrated (multiple times) how these three differences stand, I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is.

 

I knew what whimsical meant, i couldn't understand why you had used the word. Saying selection pressures are whimsical, when they are not, is wrong.

 

Sigh... Then why state the following?

3) Environmental factors are not whimsical, they are very important. They may seem whimsical to modern-day anglo speaking humans....that doesn't mean its right.

 

Because this implies that being whimsical and important are mutually exclusive, (which isn't the case as shown by my quotation of the dictionary for you).
So you mean to tell me that environmental pressures are not erratic... Ok please predict the environmental pressures for the next decade pertaining to Tasmania. Show me all the analysis you have done to make these predictions... If you cannot make these predictions then the environmental pressures are indeed erratic, due to not being able to be predicted, (since that is what being erratic entails)...

 

Gilbo, you said weather, so gonna just press a point. Natural selection operates on climatic trends, not weather, because weather is short-lived as you said.

 

Again, as I said... The Darwin's finch beak changes were due to changes in weather.... ergo you are undercutting this "evidence of evolution" in order to try and argue the point... However as I said originally, environmental pressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you are attempting to save face again... First you claimed that you never said it was the same now this. Here is what you said

You said that the only difference between them was the source of selection... This means that the rest would be... the same.. Because that is the ONLY difference....
I demonstrated 3 points where natural selection is NOT the same as artificial selection...
1- Artifical selection incorporates intelligence in the selection methodology
2- Natural selection has cheaters whereas artificial is strictly controlled
3- Natural selection is based on environmental factors which are whimsical (and change so often that fixation cannot occur anyway).
We can remove the third point since that is to do with the selection criteria which you already made a provision for. Meaning you were incorrect on the other two points, meaning natural selection is not the same as artificial selection, in fact due to the control artificial selection is MUCH stronger than natural selection meaning if we observe limits on artificial selection then we certainly would see limits imposed on natural selection since it is weaker than artificial selection...
An analogy. A bag of weights is too hard for a muscular person to lift, do you think a weaker person can lift the same bag?... See its basic logic

 

 

Oh great you changed what you said in order to fit what I just corrected you on.... Meaning you were wrong before, why change it otherwise?... Why deny this? Seriously you're just digging deeper and deeper by not simply admitting that you made a simple mistake... If you'd have done that earlier we wouldn't be making a big deal of it...

 

This is known as the Streisand Effect...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f0K6glgQJw

 

Yet I still wonder how does it cover one, one ( which was the fact that traits can be intelligently selected for on the basis of analysis... not the simple strawman version you mentioned) and two?

 

 

The statements are describing the same thing. Source of = nature or humans, selection criteria = what determines which creatures breed. The fact that you don't recognize they are the same is why I reworded the original to try and clarify things for you.

 

It covers one because the statement that "humans do X" includes the techniques that humans use to do X. Humans could decide which animals breed by flipping a coin, by using a computer, by making judgements based on verbal conversations with other humans, etc. They would all still fall under the heading of humans doing the selecting however.

 

2 is covered by the fact that "nature does X" includes events that occurs in nature which result in X. Natural differences in reproductive success could be the result of any non-artificial process. They would all fall under the heading of nature doing the selecting.

 

 

You don't have to take my word for it, here's a few other examples of people making the same statement I am.

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/02/10/artificial-versus-natural-sele/

"The difference is in what determines what is the ‘fittest’: a person’s decision as to what traits are preferable, or differential survival and reproduction"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml

"This process is called artificial selection because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce."

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/artificial-vs-natural-selection

"The only difference between natural selection and artificial selection is whether the difference in reproductive success is driven by naturally occurring processes, or whether the selection is imposed by humans"

http://books.google.com/books?id=8DUj2HvyhZ0C&lpg=PA43&ots=9ZlTxHxTwv&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The only difference between the two processes is that in artificial selection, humans decide which individuals pass their traits on to offspring, while in natural selection, the environment influences which individuals survive and reproduce"

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Artificial_selection.html

"It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species."

 

As I told you with artificial selection humans can incorporate intelligent selection based on analysis therefore it can do what natural selection simply cannot... Because randomness doesn't plan... Surely you already knew this, surely.

Analysis is just a technique used to decide which animals breed. Since human intelligence is usually part of how humans determine which animals reproduce, that's consistent with what I said, that the difference is whether humans are the ones deciding which animals breed.

I've already established that limits exist, that is all I need to do... IT is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate how the changes YOU assume occurs are not impeded by these limits...

 

By assuming that evolution occurs without demonstrating how it is not affected by these limits YOU ARE assuming that natural selection is not affected by these limits... No amount of denial can change that buddy.

 

Its ironic that years ago evolutionists used to ask, to simply demonstrate a limit to change.... Now that such a limit has been found they now demand that we demonstrate how it applies to evolution...

 

 

However come to think of it I have already demonstrated how it applies to evolution..... Please READ this post

 

You need to demonstrate that evolutionary change is not infringed by these limits we observe. If not then how do we know that the change you assume occurred isn't infringed by these limits? Simply assuming they aren't is NOT scientific.

 

However when you consider the basic tenets of common descent then over-expression is what is assumed... In order to have an organism become a different organism something needs to change, therefore something needs to be over-expressed beyond the "normal" capabilities of what the original organism was... Therefore ALL organisms which evolutionists claim are derived from common descent are caused from over-expression.

 

Perhaps look at this picture and tell me that the changes being assumed are not over-expressions

 

EvolutionFishMammal.jpg

 

 

Why would evolutionists, when discussing evolution, ask for a limit on change (aka evolution) that didn't apply to evolution?

 

As for the picture, you are making an assumption that "beyond the normal range" is the same as detrimental. These are not the same things. For a very simple example, white hair on a bear is outside the norm for a brown bear. For a brown bear that was hunting in a snowy environment it's not detrimental.

 

There's nothing in that picture that indicates a change that is detrimental. To use one of your proposed limits, "Larger heads = neck problems, issues with child birth" which two organisms in that image do you think needed an intermediate with a head that was so large it was detrimental to the intermediates reproductive chances?

 

How does this relate to your use of circular reasoning? Or was this an attempt at a red herring to try and cover your use of false "logic"...

 

 

It's an attempt to find common ground. If you accept that there are related organisms then we can use the animals you accept as related as test subjects.

Hypothesis: degree of DNA similarity correlates with degree of relatedness

Prediction: closely related organisms have more similar DNA than distantly related organisms

Test: Measure DNA similarity in organisms with known relationships, compare against expectation.

 

 

Can you post any form of support for this claim... I'd love to see an actual scientist try and claim that comparisons of something is an experiment... Statistic analysis is not an experiment.... Its simply analysis!

 

However as we see here your ability to define what an experiment is seems to be lacking wink.png

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6055&p=108440

 

 

Ok, here's NASA listing experiments which consist of measuring naturally occurring phenomenon and analyzing the results.

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/suborbit/su_experiments.cfm

"Below is a list of known CMB experiments, with links to their home pages (if available), a brief description, and, whenever possible, links to internal LAMBDA pages which provide the publicly available data from these experiments"

http://chemistry.about.com/od/introductiontochemistry/a/What-Is-An-Experiment.htm

"In its simplest form, an experiment is simply the test of a hypothesis.

...

On the other hand, making observations or trying something, after making a prediction about what you expect will happen, is a type of experiment."

Relativity is tested by comparing observations against expected results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

 

 

Really... So you think that because members of the same organism are similar therefore you can extrapolate this to anything.... This is called the fallacy of hasty generalisation... (Pro-tip: Its a fallacy, fallacies are fallacious).

Not extrapolate to anything, only those cases where the relevant factors (i.e. mutation and inheritance) can reasonably be expected to behave in similar ways.

 

 

 

Experiments don't confirm ideas, they support or refute.

 

Semantics.... You and the readers know what is being said.
Quotes from you in this thread:
"There is no way to avoid this, experimentation ensures that your assumption (hypothesis) about the observations are indeed correct"
"Therefore since there are no experiments that can confirm the assumption of similarities = ancestry"
"As I asked at the start of this thread where is the experiment that verifies this assumption"
"What experiments have been done to confirm this assumption?"
I'll try to keep in mind that when you say things like confirm, ensure correct, verify, etc. that you really just mean support. Hopefully you'll also remember that.
If you are using the terms interchangeably then anything that provides support meets your request for confirmation, verification, etc. Does the fact that organisms that are closely related have more similar DNA than organisms that are distantly related, support or not support the idea that DNA similarity correlates with relatedness?

 

Umm yeah there is...

 

 

 

You are just repeating yourself from above. If those animals are related through evolution, which of the animals in that picture do you think would have had intermediates with any of the problems you've proposed?

Increased ribs = more meat but when the back is too long it starts to droop in mid-long term

Angle of hoch = More angle means easier mating but leads to increased risk of becoming lame, less angle is more sturdy but jumping for mating is more problematic

Increased size = More meat / Powerful / Defense however being too large leads to issues with pregnancy as well as leg issues / lameness

Larger heads = neck problems, issues with child birth

Longer necks = Strain for heart to pump blood to head / neck issues with joints / support

Larger body = Issues with legs and heart to pump blood to increased body mass

 

 

Hang on YOU were asking me to prove a negative!... I repeatedly pointed that out to you over the course of a few pages...

 

All I am asking is for you to demonstrate how evolution... the thing YOU claim is real... is not limited by the limitations we observe...

 

YOU claim evolution is real therefore YOU are required to demonstrate how what you claim to be REAL is in fact REAL by not contradicting with these limitations we observe in reality..

The same can be said for anything... If I claimed that I can fly to the moon with my magic gumboots it is MY responsibility to give evidence for that... Not for me to say that you need to disprove my claim. I have lectured you on this many many many many many times, and you still ignore and make the same claims...
Really dude, perhaps if you gave some coherent reasoning for why my requests for you to support what you claim is true are unrealistic... then perhaps we can have a rational conversation. However continually parroting the same debunked argument despite multiple objections is getting old, and only makes you look the fool.

 

Evolution is a theory that applies to every organism. By asking me to show that evolution doesn't involve a change that is harmful, you are asking me to show that every change for every organism isn't harmful. That's an impossible request because it asks for a universal (every change for every organism everywhere) negative (isn't harmful). I'm asking you to give a specific example (not-universal) of a change that is harmful. In other words, I'm asking for something similar to your fish spine argument, preferably with some support from outside sources.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The statements are describing the same thing.  Source of = nature or humans, selection criteria = what determines which creatures breed.  The fact that you don't recognize they are the same is why I reworded the original to try and clarify things for you.

 

 

Or you reworded your claim after I corrected it because I corrected it... Otherwise why reword your claim... Why not stick to your guns? IF you really were correct before... In other-words for you to re-word your statement is to silently admit that your previous statement was indeed incorrect.... Why can't you admit this? Or are you enjoying the Streisand Effect here?

 

You stated earlier

 

Al234, on 08 Jun 2014 - 5:36 PM, said:snapback.png

The only difference between natural and artificial selection is the source of the selection criteria.  Given the same selection criteria they are capable of exactly the same things.

 

 

I have given you 3 points which demonstrate how such a claim is insufficiently simplistic and doesn't address the other differences between them. Additionally the fact that humans can intelligently assess data about the characteristics and reproductive success of individuals ensures that it is capable of much more than natural selection could ever do...

 

Suggesting that natural selection and artificial selection can ever have the same selection criteria is ignoring the points I brought forth... If artificial selection's criteria is based on intelligent analysis then how can you claim natural selection could have the same, if not demonstrating ignorance on this difference between the two?

 

 


 

You don't have to take my word for it, here's a few other examples of people making the same statement I am.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/02/10/artificial-versus-natural-sele/

"The difference is in what determines what is the ‘fittest’: a person’s decision as to what traits are preferable, or differential survival and reproduction"

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml

"This process is called artificial selection because people (instead of nature) select which organisms get to reproduce."

 

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/artificial-vs-natural-selection

"The only difference between natural selection and artificial selection is whether the difference in reproductive success is driven by naturally occurring processes, or whether the selection is imposed by humans"

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=8DUj2HvyhZ0C&lpg=PA43&ots=9ZlTxHxTwv&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The only difference between the two processes is that in artificial selection, humans decide which individuals pass their traits on to offspring, while in natural selection, the environment influences which individuals survive and reproduce"

 

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Artificial_selection.html

"It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species."

 

 

Sigh... All these quotes demonstrate how insufficient evolutionist scientists really are... Thanks! Its a shining testament to their inability to apply logic to a field of study they have apparently studied for 3 or more years... Yet more evidence to the inadequacy of evolutionist scientists...

 

All of these quotes completely ignores the points of 1 and 2... Humans choosing which traits to select no makes no mention of

 

- that the traits being selected for are done so from intelligent analysis as to optimize output

- that the artificial selection has tighter control over the selection process

 

 

So thanks for his info :D

 

 

 

Analysis is just a technique used to decide which animals breed.  Since human intelligence is usually part of how humans determine which animals reproduce, that's consistent with what I said, that the difference is whether humans are the ones deciding which animals breed.

 

Read above... I will admit that it is consistent with what you changed your claims to AFTER I corrected you... But in terms of your original statement, the one I corrected, it is indeed false.

 

Suggesting that natural selection and artificial selection can ever have the same selection criteria is ignoring the points I brought forth... If artificial selection's criteria is based on intelligent analysis then how can you claim natural selection could have the same, if not demonstrating ignorance on this difference between the two?

 

 

Why would evolutionists, when discussing evolution, ask for a limit on change (aka evolution) that didn't apply to evolution?

 

Once again I ask, how do you know that it doesn't apply to evolution?

 

We observe limits to change, YOU claim that evolution occured, ergo YOU are the person who has to demonstrate how these limits do not infringe on evolution... IF not then how can you claim it doesn't apply? Simply ignoring issues doesn't make them go away, (I've told you this probably 15 times now, when will you start to listen?).

 

 

As for the picture, you are making an assumption that "beyond the normal range" is the same as detrimental.  These are not the same things.  For a very simple example, white hair on a bear is outside the norm for a brown bear.  For a brown bear that was hunting in a snowy environment it's not detrimental.

 

Sigh.... I made no assumption... Please go READ my posts.... As demonstrated (over and over and over and over for you), in the Persian cat and agriculture stock demonstrate limitation in the form of trade-off... You were hesitant at this before and I repeatedly explained the concept, I even gave you links to papers about trade-off, so it is a known phenomenon...  It seems as if you've completely ignored everything I've been saying for the last few pages... This is really sad.

 

 

 

 

There's nothing in that picture that indicates a change that is detrimental.  To use one of your proposed limits, "Larger heads = neck problems, issues with child birth" which two organisms in that image do you think needed an intermediate with a head that was so large it was detrimental to the intermediates reproductive chances?

 

 

You asked for an example of over-expression stated by evolutionists... I gave you the picture...

 

So now you change the goal-posts as to whether the changes are detrimental or not...

 

The fact that they are over-expressions, and with the observations previously given that over-expressions lead to detriment in the form of trade-offs demonstrates that the assumed changes given in the picture could well be detrimental, and thus not occured at all... Since YOU are the one who claims Evolution is real / supported... Then YOU are the one who needs to demonstrate that the changes can occur normally.

 

 

 

 


It's an attempt to find common ground.  If you accept that there are related organisms then we can use the animals you accept as related as test subjects.

 

Hypothesis: degree of DNA similarity correlates with degree of relatedness

Prediction: closely related organisms have more similar DNA than distantly related organisms

Test: Measure DNA similarity in organisms with known relationships, compare against expectation.

 

Really or perhaps it was an attempt to divert away from your use of circular reasoning...

 

Quote

Circular reasoning strikes again. I suggest you read this thread, (yes the entirety of it), because it stands as a testament to how evolutionists use circular reasoning (begging the question fallacy), like you are right now.

 

I asked you to support how you know that similarities = ancestry... Yet here you are assuming similarities = ancestry with claiming "known relationships"...

 

How do you know of this "known relationship"? You assume that similarities = ancestry and then claim that the more similar are related...

 

So humans are related to humans... On what basis can you extrapolate this to other organisms?

 

 

 


http://chemistry.about.com/od/introductiontochemistry/a/What-Is-An-Experiment.htm
"In its simplest form, an experiment is simply the test of a hypothesis.
...
 On the other hand, making observations or trying something, after making a prediction about what you expect will happen, is a type of experiment."

 

 

So after all the mentioning on what an experiment is and isn't you then quote this one sentence and think that it invalidates everything else... The fact is that the observations being made here are attributed to natural experiments... WHICH ARE DONE IN REAL TIME! That is why observing fossils and then making assumptions about the past is not a natural experiment, all you are doing is making assumptions... Assumptions are not tests!

 

Types of Experiments
  • Natural Experiments

    A natural experiment also is called a quasi-experiment. A natural experiment involves making a prediction or forming a hypothesis and then gathering data by observing a system. The variables are not controlled in a natural experiment.

     

  • Controlled Experiments

    Lab experiments are controlled experiments, although you can perform a controlled experiment outside of a lab setting! In a controlled experiment, you compare an experimental group with a control group. Ideally, these two groups are identical except for one variable, the independent variable.

     

  • Field Experiments

    A field experiment may be either a natural experiment or a controlled experiment. It takes place in a real-world setting, rather than under lab conditions. For example, an experiment involving an animal in its natural habitat would be a field experiment.

 

Variables in an Experiment

Simply put, a variable is anything you can change or control in an experiment. Common examples of variables include temperature, duration of the experiment, composition of a material, amount of light, etc. There are three kinds of variables in an experiment: controlled variables, independent variables and dependent variables.

 

Controlled variables, sometimes called constant variables are variables that are kept constant or unchanging. For example, if you are doing an experiment measuring the fizz released from different types of soda, you might control the size of the container so that all brands of soda would be in 12-oz cans. If you are performing an experiment on the effect of spraying plants with different chemicals, you would try to maintain the same pressure and maybe the same volume when spraying your plants.

 

The independent variable is the one factor that you are changing. I say one factor because usually in an experiment you try to change one thing at a time. This makes measurements and interpretation of the data much easier. If you are trying to determine whether heating water allows you to dissolve more sugar in the water then your independent variable is the temperature of the water. This is the variable you are purposely controlling.

 

The dependent variable is the variable you observe, to see whether it is affected by your independent variable. In the example where you are heating water to see if this affects the amount of sugar you can dissolve, the mass or volume of sugar (whichever you choose to measure) would be your dependent variable.

 

 

What are the variables in your experiment? How can you determine cause-effect relationships? How do you control confounding factors?

 

If you cannot explain how to solve these then your "observation" is not an experiment... by definition...

 

Observation Study vs.Experiment
IMPORTANT: An observational study may reveal correlation between two variables, but only a randomized experiment can prove cause‐and‐effect
 
•Why???
–Confounding factors may be present in observational studies – Random assignment to treatment and control groups in an experiment helps equalize the groups with respect to any confounding variables so any difference in the response is attributable to the explanatory variable

 

 

 

 

 

Not extrapolate to anything, only those cases where the relevant factors (i.e. mutation and inheritance) can reasonably be expected to behave in similar ways.
 

 

You are extrapolating, you are assuming that since the mechanisms of inheritance are the same then that means they are related... Again you are assuming similarities = ancestry... and then applying this to other organisms.

 

 

Does the fact that organisms that are closely related have more similar DNA than organisms that are distantly related, support or not support the idea that DNA similarity correlates with relatedness?

 

How do you determine what organisms are more closely related? Oh via DNA analysis... So you are claiming that since organisms which are deemed closely related (via DNA analysis), have similar DNA then that means DNA similarity is linked to relatedness...

 

Surely you see the circular reasoning here... Surely...

 

1- Determine relatedness via DNA similarity

2- Claim that since organisms are more related with more similar DNA then this means DNA similarity is linked to ancestry...

 

 

You are just repeating yourself from above.  If those animals are related through evolution, which of the animals in that picture do you think would have had intermediates with any of the problems you've proposed?

 

Why does it just have to be the problems I have proposed? Am I the source of all knowledge?

 

The fact remains that evolutionists need to demonstrate how the limits we observe with artificial selection (which is a stronger form of selection), doesn't hinder natural selection... Since YOU are the one claiming evolution occurs and natural selection is the mechanism of the change proposed.

 

 

 

Evolution is a theory that applies to every organism.  By asking me to show that evolution doesn't involve a change that is harmful, you are asking me to show that every change for every organism isn't harmful.  That's an impossible request because it asks for a universal (every change for every organism everywhere) negative (isn't harmful).  I'm asking you to give a specific example (not-universal) of a change that is harmful. 

 

 

No I am asking you to demonstrate how the thing you believe occurs is not limited by the limits we observe... That is a fair question since if anyone is going to claim something exists then he or she is obligated to demonstrate how it doesn't conflict with over observations we make in reality...

 

If I told you that I can fly with my magic gumboots, I am obligated to demonstrate how my gumboots defy the observation of the effects of gravity, etc...

 

All I am asking is that you support your beliefs, in light of this new evidence of limitations to change... That is very fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Origin of species? Let me see:

 

Blick_in_die_Glaskugel_327109.jpg

 

I see... natural selection.

 

 

(someone posted this in another forum and I thought it was hilarious and accurate and had to repost it biggrin.png )

 

hahaha I did one here: 10h7rk2.jpg

 

I'm gonna use it now thanks my friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading many posts I doubt there is anything called natural selection since I noticed "selection " is always made by something alive. Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? In the first one, look at the image of the foetus developing, particulatrly from day 12 to day 16. It has a tail.

 

This link may be better for looking at the image:

 

http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=File:Human_Carnegie_stage_1-23.jpg

 

Here are images of people with tails:

 

http://evolutionfun.com/images/content/human_tail8.jpg

 

Does that need any more explaining?

 

Human tails and fairy tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Summers, on 16 Oct 2014 - 10:08 AM, wrote:

After reading many posts I doubt there is anything called natural selection since I noticed "selection " is always made by something alive. Think about it.

I do believe that there is something to the "selection" tenet of 'Evolution'. We are all familiar with the "survival of the fittest" phrase as the terse, descriptive expression of this tenet. To me, this is akin to the "facts of life" or "law of the jungle".

None of that, of course, can EXCLUSIVELY take some "first life" all the way to present-day complex life. The achilles heal of 'Evolution'--any conception of it--rests in the area of "genetic mutation", random or otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that, of course, can EXCLUSIVELY take some "first life" all the way to present-day complex life. The achilles heal of 'Evolution'--any conception of it--rests in the area of "genetic mutation", random or otherwise.

 

 

I can agree with you on this, but the problem is that "genetic mutations" cannot form new traits and that's really all about it. I would however be interested if someone could post a study which shows the formation of new traits as a result of genetic mutations, preferably not from talkorigins or a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can agree with you on this, but the problem is that "genetic mutations" cannot form new traits and that's really all about it. I would however be interested if someone could post a study which shows the formation of new traits as a result of genetic mutations, preferably not from talkorigins or a forum.

 

A study showing small changes would be posted and deemed "evidence of evolution" yet I would wonder where is the evidence linking this small change to the large-scale structural changes evolutionists assume occurred? What evidence links the two, or is this link simply assumed on the part of the evolutionist?

 

Hence the title, "evolution did it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A study showing small changes would be posted and deemed "evidence of evolution" yet I would wonder where is the evidence linking this small change to the large-scale structural changes evolutionists assume occurred? What evidence links the two, or is this link simply assumed on the part of the evolutionist?

 

Evolutionaries tend to use the ittsy-bittsy, teeny-weeny accumulations-over-time explanation. They hang their hat on this to explain the entire immense change that must have occurred--by the theory--over several billions of years.

 

I have seen experiments which claim to control the rates of mutation of an organism, but nothing regarding change, large or small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Evolutionaries tend to use the ittsy-bittsy, teeny-weeny accumulations-over-time explanation. They hang their hat on this to explain the entire immense change that must have occurred--by the theory--over several billions of years.

 

In other-words, they assume "evolution did it", hence the title of this thread.

 

 

 

I have seen experiments which claim to control the rates of mutation of an organism, but nothing regarding change, large or small.

 

If that is the case and the rates of mutation can be controlled, then would that imply that mutations aren't random? If so then mutations are programmed, programmed by who? I wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In other-words, they assume "evolution did it", hence the title of this thread.

 

If that is the case and the rates of mutation can be controlled, then would that imply that mutations aren't random? If so then mutations are programmed, programmed by who? I wonder...

 

Indeed to both--up to "programmed".

 

I do remember that the paper concluded that mutations were not random. That was one reason I began to adopt the "random or otherwise" clause to my assertions about "genetic mutation", as it didn't matter to me whether the theory embraced or rejected "directed" mutation: It's ludicrous to believe that nature produced complex present-day life from some "first-life".

 

I know some of you are with me on that, but I'm not with you on the Creator explanation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed to both--up to "programmed".

 

I do remember that the paper concluded that mutations were not random. That was one reason I began to adopt the "random or otherwise" clause to my assertions about "genetic mutation", as it didn't matter to me whether the theory embraced or rejected "directed" mutation: It's ludicrous to believe that nature produced complex present-day life from some "first-life".

 

I know some of you are with me on that, but I'm not with you on the Creator explanation.

I'm confused, if you do not believe in a creator, but also do not believe in abiogenesis, what do you believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms