Is Natural Selection Evolution?
gabriel
Let's listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical
creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some
recent scientific news headlines:
E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse
evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach
mice?
E: Yes, isn't it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
action, which is merely selecting information that already
exists.
E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don't you
think that's a good example of evolution occurring right before
our eyes?
C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms "evolution" and
"natural selection."
E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives
evolution.
C: Natural selection doesn't drive molecules-to-man evolution;
you are giving natural selection a power that it does not
have-one that can supposedly add new information to the genome,
as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection
simply can't do that because it works with information that
already exists.
Natural selection is an observable process that is often
purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable
molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different,
though some mistakenly interchange the two. So let's take a
closer look. There are two major questions to answer:
How do biblical creationists rightly view the observable
phenomenon of natural selection?
Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
necessary for molecules-to-man evolution?
What Is Natural Selection?
Below are some definitions evolutionists use to define "natural
selection." The problem biblical creationists have with these
definitions lies mostly in their misapplication, as noted by the
bolded phrases.
*Evolutionary change* based on the differential reproductive
success of individuals within a species.1
The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each
successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species
become better adapted to their environment. Also known as
"survival of the fittest," *natural selection is the driving
force behind the process of evolution*.2
The process in nature by which, according to *Darwin's theory of
evolution*, only the organisms best adapted to their environment
tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in
increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less
adapted tend to be eliminated (*also see evolution*).3
From a creationist perspective natural selection is a process
whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective
of their genetic makeup) survive better than others in a given
environment or under a given selective pressure (i.e., antibiotic
resistance in bacteria). Those with certain characteristics live,
and those without them diminish in number or die.
The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is
nondirectional-should the environment change or the selective
pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for
characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes
and may be selected against because their genetic information has
decreased-more on this later. Evolution of the molecules-to-man
variety, requires directional change. Thus, the term "evolution"
cannot be rightly used in the context of describing what natural
selection can accomplish.
What Is Evolution?
This term has many definitions just as "natural selection" does.
Much of the term's definition depends on the context in which the
word "evolution" is used. Below are some recent notable
definitions of evolution (note the bold phrases).
Unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an
inherently, or at least *directional manner*.4
The theory that all life forms are *descended* from *one or
several common ancestors* that were present on early earth,
*three to four billion years ago*.5
The "Big Idea" [referring to evolution] is that living things
(species) are related to one another through *common ancestry*
from earlier forms that differed from them. Darwin called this
"*descent with modification*," and it is still the best
definition of evolution we can use, *especially with members of
the general public and with young learners*.6
All of these definitions give the same basic idea that evolution
is directional in producing all the life-forms on earth today
from one or several ancestral life-forms billions of years ago.
The last definition is especially intriguing because it indicates
that an ambiguous definition of evolution should be used with the
public and with children. Most creationists would agree partially
with the idea of "descent with modification" in that species we
have today look different from the original kinds that God
created (i.e., the great variety of dogs we have now compared to
the original created dog kind). The advantage with using such a
broad definition for evolution is that it can include any and all
supporting models of evolution (such as traditional Darwinism,
neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) and can spark the
least amount of controversy in the public eye.
Historical Background on the Discovery of Natural Selection
Many people give credit to Charles Darwin for formulating the
theory of natural selection as described in his book On the
Origin of Species. Few realize that Darwin only popularized the
idea and actually borrowed it from several other people,
especially a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth
published several articles describing the process of natural
selection in Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837-a
full 22 years before Darwin published his book. It is also known
that Darwin had copies of these magazines and that parts of On
The Origin of Species are nearly verbatim from Blyth's articles.7
Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions.
Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind
forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds,
that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that
natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating.
Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from
animals. This is especially important since humans are made in
the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals
(Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural selection as a
mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His
creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is
very different from Darwin's view. Darwin wrote, "What a book a
devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering
low and horridly cruel works of nature."8
Is Natural Selection Biblical?
It is important to see natural selection as a mechanism that God
used to allow organisms to deal with their changing environments
in a sin-cursed world-especially after the Flood. God foreknew
that the Fall and the Flood were going to happen, and so He
designed organisms with a great amount of genetic diversity that
could be selected for or against, resulting in certain
characteristics depending on the circumstances. Whether this
information was initially part of the original design during
Creation Week before the Fall or was added, in part, at the Fall
(as a part of the punishment of man and the world by God),9 we
can't be certain. Regardless, the great variety of information in
the original created kinds can only be attributed to an
intelligence-God.
In addition, natural selection works to preserve the genetic
viability of the original created kinds by removing from the
population those with severely deleterious/lethal
characteristics. Natural selection, acting on genetic
information, is the primary mechanism that explains how organisms
could have survived after the Fall and Flood when the world
changed drastically from God's original creation.
Let me take a moment to clarify an important theological point so
there is no confusion. Death entered the world as the result of
sin. Death, therefore, is in the world as a punishment for man's
disobedience to God, and it should remind us that the world is
sin-cursed and needs a Savior. Death is not a good thing but is
called an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).
But recall that God, in His infinite wisdom, can make good come
out of anything, and death is no exception. God is able to make
good come out of even death itself. Natural selection, though
fueled by death, helps the population by getting rid of genetic
defects, etc. In the same way, without death Christ wouldn't have
conquered it and been glorified in His Resurrection.
So what can natural selection accomplish and not accomplish? The
table on the next page displays some of the main points.
Natural Selection Can
1. Decrease genetic information.
2. Allow organisms to survive better in a given environment.
3. Act as a "selector."
4. Support creation's "orchard" of life.
Natural Selection Cannot
1. Increase or provide new genetic information.
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as an "originator."
4. Support evolutionary "tree" of life.
www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/tree.gif
The evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today's species
are descended from one common ancestor (which itself evolved from
nonliving chemicals).
www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/orchard.jpg
The creationist orchard,10 which shows that diversity has
occurred within the original Genesis kinds over time.11
Natural Selection and Dogs
Let's illustrate the possibilities and limitations of natural
selection using the example of varying fur length of dogs
(designed variation).
There are many different dog species-some with long fur and some
with short fur. The original dog kind, most likely resembling
today's wolf, had several variants of the gene for fur length. L
will be the variant of the gene representing long fur, and S will
be the variant of the gene representing short fur.
www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/dog-fur.jpg
The original dog kind most likely would have been a mixture of
the genes specifying fur length, including both L and S. Because
of this makeup, they also most likely had the characteristic of
medium fur length. When the original kind (LS dogs) mated, their
genetic variability could be seen in their offspring in three
ways-LL for long fur, LS for medium fur, and SS for short fur.
If two long-fur dogs then mated, the only possible outcome for
the offspring is LL, long fur. As can be seen in the example
below, the long-fur dogs have lost the S gene variant and are
thus not capable of producing dogs with short fur or medium fur.
This loss may be an advantage if these long-fur dogs live in an
area with cold temperatures. The long-fur dogs would then be
naturally selected for, as they would survive better in the given
environment. Eventually, the majority of this area's dog
population would have long fur.
However, the loss of the S variant could be a disadvantage to the
long-fur dogs if the climate became warmer or if the dogs moved
to a warmer climate. Because of their decreased genetic variety
(no S gene), they would be unable to produce dogs with short fur,
which would be needed to survive better in a warm environment. In
this situation, the long-fur dogs would be naturally selected
against and die.
When the two dogs representing the dog kind came off Noah's Ark
and began spreading across the globe, we can see how the
variation favored some animals and not others.
Using the points from the table for what natural selection can
accomplish (seen above), it can be seen that:
1. Through natural selection, genetic information (variety) was
lost.
2. The long-fur dogs survive better in a cold environment; they
are less able to survive in a warm environment and vice versa.
3. A particular characteristic in the dog population was selected
for.
4. Dogs are still dogs since the variation is within the
boundaries of "kind."
Natural selection of designed variation within the dog kind is
not an example of evolution because it does not lead to the
formation of a different kind of animal such as a horse, bear, or
human. Instead, it is evidence of God's grace in supplying for
His creation in the altered environments of a post-Fall,
post-Flood world.
Natural Selection and Bacteria
Another example of natural selection is that of antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. Such natural selection is commonly
portrayed as evolution in action, but in this case, natural
selection works in conjunction with mutation rather than designed
variation.
Antibiotics are natural products produced by fungi and bacteria,
and the antibiotics we use today are typically derivatives of
those. Because of this relationship, it is not surprising that
some bacteria would have resistance to certain antibiotics; they
must do so to be competitive in their environment. In fact, if
you took a sample of soil from outside your home, you would find
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
A bacterium can gain resistance through two primary ways:
By losing genetic information, and
By using a design feature built in to swap DNA-a bacterium gains
resistance from another bacterium that has resistance.
Let's take a look at the first. Antibiotics usually bind a
protein in the bacterium and prevent it from functioning
properly, killing the bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
have a mutation in the DNA which codes for that protein. The
antibiotic then cannot bind to the protein produced from the
mutated DNA, and thus, the bacteria live. Although the bacteria
can survive well in an environment with antibiotics, it has come
at a cost. If the antibiotic-resistant bacteria are grown with
the nonmutant bacteria in an environment without antibiotics, the
nonmutant bacteria will live and the mutant bacteria will die.
This is because the mutant bacteria produce a mutant protein that
does not allow them to compete with other bacteria for necessary
nutrients. The "supergerms" are really "superwimps."12
Let's clarify this some by looking at the bacteria Helicobacter
pylori. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that
results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This
enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes
death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H.
pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are
killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information
survive and pass this trait along to their offspring.
www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/h-pylori.jpg
Now let's take a look at the second method. A bacterium can get
antibiotic resistance by gaining the aforementioned mutated DNA
from another bacterium. Unlike you and me, bacteria can swap DNA.
It is important to note that this is still not considered a gain
of genetic information since the information already exists and
that while the mutated DNA may be new to a particular bacterium,
it is not new overall.
Using the points from the table for what natural selection can
accomplish, it can be seen that:
1. Through mutation, genetic information was lost.
2. The antibiotic resistant bacteria only survive well in an
environment with antibiotics; they are less able to survive in
the wild. (It is important to keep in mind that the gain of
antibiotic resistance is not an example of a beneficial mutation
but rather a beneficial outcome of a mutation in a given
environment. These types of mutations are rare in other organisms
as offspring are more limited in number; therefore, there is a
greater need to preserve genetic integrity.)
3. A particular mutation in a bacterial population was selected
for.
4. H. pylori is still H. pylori. No evolution has taken place to
change it into something else-it's still the same bacteria with
some variation.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, rather than being an example
of evolution in action, is another example of natural selection
seen properly from a biblical/creationist perspective.
Speciation-A Possible Outcome of Natural Selection
www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/cold-hot-dog-fur.jpg
A species can be defined as a population of organisms produced by
a parent population that has changed so significantly that it can
no longer interbreed with the parent population. Using the
example of dogs, it is possible that long-fur dogs might change
sufficiently (other changes besides fur might also be selected
for living in cold environments) to the point that they can no
longer mate with short-fur or mediumfur dogs.
Although evolutionists claim that speciation takes long periods
of time (millions of years), they are often amazed at how fast
species can be observed to form today. Speciation has been
observed to occur in as little as a few years as seen in guppies,
lizards, fruit flies, mosquitoes, finches, and mice.13 This
observation does not come as a surprise to creationists as all
species alive in the past and today would have had to be produced
in fewer than 6,000 years from the original created kinds. In
fact, such processes (and perhaps other genetic factors) would
have occurred rapidly after the Flood, producing variation within
each kind. Such effects are largely responsible for generating
the tremendous diversity seen in the living world.14
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a
different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat. Speciation
works only within a kind. Evolution requires natural selection
and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind
(e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation, however, leads
to a loss of information, not the gain of information required by
evolution. Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural
selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man
evolution.
Conclusion
When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for
evolution, it is important to define terms. Evolutionists and
biblical creationists view these terms differently, but it comes
down to how we interpret the evidence in light of our foundation.
Do we view natural selection using God's Word as our foundation,
or do we use man's truth as our foundation?
The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically
and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process
that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood
world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and
takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to
preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.
Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation
within the created kind-a horizontal change. For a
molecules-to-man evolutionary model, there must be a change from
one kind into another-a vertical change. This is simply not
observed. We have never seen a bacterium like H. pylori give rise
to something like a dog. Instead, we simply observe variations
within each created kind.
Evolution requires an increase in information that results in a
directional movement from molecules to man. Natural selection
cannot be a mechanism for evolution because it results in a
decrease in information and is not directional. Speciation may
occur as a result of natural selection, but it only occurs within
a kind. Therefore, it is also not a mechanism for evolution but
rather supports the biblical model.
Natural selection cannot be the driving force for
molecules-to-man evolution when it does not have that power, nor
should it be confused with molecules-to-man evolution. It is an
observable phenomenon that preserves genetic viability and allows
limited variation within a kind-nothing more, nothing less. It is
a great confirmation of the Bible's history.
1 Michael A.Park, Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated
Approach, 2nd Ed., glossary,
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html,
2002. Back
2 National Geographic�s strange days on planet earth, glossary,
www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/N.html. Back
3 Dinosaurs�glossary of terms,
www.internal.schools.net.au/edu/lesson_ideas/dinosaurs/glossary.html.
Back
4 S.J. Gould, What does the dreaded �E� word mean, anyway?
Natural History 109(1): 28�44, 2000. Back
5 D. O�Leary, By Design or by Chance? Castle Quay, Kitchener,
Ontario, Canada, 7, 2004. Back
6 Eugenie C. Scott, Creation or evolution?
www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6261_creation_or_evolution__1_9_2001.asp.
Back
7 J. Foard, The Darwin papers, �Edward Blyth and natural
selection,� www.thedarwinpapers.com. Back
8 Letter from Charles Darwin to Joseph Hooker, Darwin Archives,
Cambridge University, July 13, 1856. Back
9 See chapter 21 in this book. Back
10 Dr. Kurt Wise developed the �orchard� analogy in the early
90s. Back
11 Creationists often refer to each kind as a baramin, from
Hebrew bara = create and min = kind. Back
12 C. Wieland, Superbugs not super after all, Creation
20(1):10�13, June�August 1992. Back
13 D. Catchpoole and C. Wieland, Speedy species surprise,
Creation 23(2):13�15, March 2001. Back
14 C. Wieland, Darwin�s finches, Creation 14(3):22�23, June 1992.
Back
Bob LeChevalier
all cross-posted postings anyway.
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>action, which is merely selecting information that already
>exists.
Nonsense.
>E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don't you
>think that's a good example of evolution occurring right before
>our eyes?
>
>C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms "evolution" and
>"natural selection."
Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in populations over
time. Natural selection is one mechanism for such a change. Mutation
is another, and a major component in modern evolutionary theory.
And to skip ahead, mutation is COMMON. Every human being has
*multiple* mutations in their genome over their lifetimes. Most of
them don't have any effect - now. But they add to that enormous
amount of "information" stored in our junk DNA.
>E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives
>evolution.
It is part of the primary mechanism. It is not the entirety.
>C: Natural selection doesn't drive molecules-to-man evolution;
There is no such thing as "molecules-to-man evolution". There is
simply "evolution", a change in allele frequency in populations over
time. Evolution did not start until there were reproducing life-forms
that had such alleles.
In one series of evolutionary change over billions of years, on one
small planet among countless such planets in the universe, single
celled creatures evolved into a variety of multicellular forms,
including homo sapiens and millions of other species. "Man" is just
one of those species, and is no more important,
evolutionarily-speaking, than any other. Evolution is not oriented
towards "progress" or more "advanced" forms. It is simply change.
>you are giving natural selection a power that it does not
>have-one that can supposedly add new information to the genome,
The information is already there, in spades, in the form of junk DNA,
and in various mechanisms that use the same genes in different
contexts and with different regulation to generate different results.
>as molecules-to-man evolution
No such thing,
>But natural selection
>simply can't do that because it works with information that
>already exists.
Natural selection doesn't give a damn about "information"
>How do biblical creationists rightly view
Biblical creationists don't "rightly" view anything about science.
According the Bible any role in science is inherently wrong.
>Could this process cause the increase in genetic information
"Genetic information" is a nonsense phrase that Biblical creationists
invented and do not understand.
>Below are some definitions evolutionists use to define "natural
>selection." The problem biblical creationists have with these
>definitions lies mostly in their misapplication, as noted by the
>bolded phrases.
>
>*Evolutionary change* based on the differential reproductive
>success of individuals within a species.1
>The process by which genetic traits are passed on to each
>successive generation. Over time, natural selection helps species
>become better adapted to their environment. Also known as
>"survival of the fittest," *natural selection is the driving
>force behind the process of evolution*.2
>The process in nature by which, according to *Darwin's theory of
>evolution*, only the organisms best adapted to their environment
>tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in
>increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less
>adapted tend to be eliminated (*also see evolution*).3
3 is probably best.
>The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection is
>nondirectional
That isn't a problem.
>should the environment change or the selective
>pressure be removed, those organisms with previously selected for
>characteristics are typically less able to deal with the changes
>and may be selected against because their genetic information has
>decreased-more on this later.
Which is why such issues as global warming and destruction of habitat
of endangered species is important.
But in fact natural selection doesn't generally eliminate
"information". It may still be there within the one species, or it
exists in other species that will move in and take over if the
environment "changes back"
>Evolution of the molecules-to-man variety,
There is no such variety.
>requires directional change.
No.
>What Is Evolution?
>This term has many definitions just as "natural selection" does.
>Much of the term's definition depends on the context in which the
>word "evolution" is used. Below are some recent notable
>definitions of evolution (note the bold phrases).
>
>Unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an
>inherently, or at least *directional manner*.4
>The theory that all life forms are *descended* from *one or
>several common ancestors* that were present on early earth,
>*three to four billion years ago*.5
>The "Big Idea" [referring to evolution] is that living things
>(species) are related to one another through *common ancestry*
>from earlier forms that differed from them. Darwin called this
>"*descent with modification*," and it is still the best
>definition of evolution we can use, *especially with members of
>the general public and with young learners*.6
>
>All of these definitions give the same basic idea that evolution
>is directional in producing all the life-forms on earth today
>from one or several ancestral life-forms billions of years ago.
No. The "direction" can only be seen in retrospect by those who look
for it and think of modern species as the end of a process.
But they aren't. We (the trillions of instances of life currently on
this planet) are ALL "missing links" between our predecessors and
future life forms.
Remaining tripe deleted. Better to read the talk.origins FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Juan M
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:lta285568o4edrif8...@4ax.com...
We are all links, some of us are just missing more than others.
I, personally, will be extinct in a few more decades. Fortunately, my
prodigy will not be, hopefully!
We are the first species to hold in our hands the instruments of our own
potential extinction.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
: all cross-posted postings anyway.
:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
: >exists.
:
: Nonsense.
Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
information in the genome, rather than the "nonsense" that it's
only selecting informant ion that's already there.
[snip]
Free Lunch
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ckr895lg7j3h2q1rg...@4ax.com>:
Natural selection is the filtering part. Variation is the part you have
forgotten apart.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
>: all cross-posted postings anyway.
>:
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
>: >exists.
>:
>: Nonsense.
>
>Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>information in the genome
"Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does. No
discussion of evolution can be limited to "natural selection".
Recombination and mutation are the most common sources of new
information in the genome.
VoiceOfReason
time.
So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
VoiceOfReason
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
> : all cross-posted postings anyway.
>
> : >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
> : >action, which is merely selecting information that already
> : >exists.
> :
> : Nonsense.
>
> Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
> test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
> information in the genome, rather than the "nonsense" that it's
> only selecting informant ion that's already there.
>
> [snip]
Buy a biology book.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
: >: all cross-posted postings anyway.
: >:
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
: >: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
: >: >exists.
: >:
: >: Nonsense.
: >
: >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
: >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
: >information in the genome
:
: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
"Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
for such a change. Mutation is another"
You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
genome.
So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
recombination) is a source of new information, after originally
saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
information in the genome.
You are either ignorant of what you speak of, or were being
dishonest and caught.
Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
already there*.
: No
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
Apparently you don't read the one you have - even the other
poster Bob C. backtracked when he realized natural selection does
no such thing. In your anger, you merely respond "buy a biology
book" clearly under the mistaken notion natural selection does
create brand new information in the genome. Perfect example of
how unknowledgeable a typical believer in evolutionism is - they
can't even correctly state what their own beliefs are, but rather
throw insults to deflect from the truth that contradicts their
beliefs. =(
Jeffrey Turner
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> : ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> : >
> : >: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
> : >: all cross-posted postings anyway.
> : >:
> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
> : >: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
> : >: >exists.
> : >:
> : >: Nonsense.
> : >
> : >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
> : >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
> : >information in the genome
> :
> : "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
>
> You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
>
> "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
> populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
> for such a change. Mutation is another"
>
> You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
> genome.
No he didn't. He said natural selection affects the change in
frequency of alleles over time. Mutation creates changes in the
genome. Natural selection and drift determine how those changes
propagate through the population.
> So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
> recombination) is a source of new information, after originally
> saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
> mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
> selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
> information in the genome.
>
> You are either ignorant of what you speak of, or were being
> dishonest and caught.
Nope. If you understood evolution you'd know better. If you don't
understand evolution you can't decide it's wrong.
> Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
> scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
> information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
> already there*.
Corrupting what was already there creates new information. Red hair is
the result of a genetic mutation. Before the mutation nobody had red
hair but after it someone did. And how to grow red hair is certainly
new information.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >
>: >: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
>: >: all cross-posted postings anyway.
>: >:
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>: >: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
>: >: >exists.
>: >:
>: >: Nonsense.
>: >
>: >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>: >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>: >information in the genome
>:
>: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
>
>You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
>
> "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
> populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
> for such a change. Mutation is another"
>
>You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
>genome.
Clearly you cannot read. Please, reread what you quoted and try to
figure out how you managed to misinterpret it.
>So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
>recombination) is a source of new information, after originally
>saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
>mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
>selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
>information in the genome.
New information is not the only feature necessary for evolution. It is
possible that you did not realize that in your invincible ignorance. It
has been clear for a long time that you do not understand it.
>You are either ignorant of what you speak of, or were being
>dishonest and caught.
Neither. You have made claims that show you do not understand the
process and you have ignored those who have tried to correct you. Only
your dishonesty can be seen here.
>Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
>scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
>information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
>already there*.
You will have to define what you mean by that. How is one not the other?
As a special bonus in trying to understand life on earth, learn about
triticale.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>: On Aug 25, 7:07�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: >
>: > <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >
>: > : The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
>: > : all cross-posted postings anyway.
No, they do not. There are cross-posting rules but they are not as you
describe. Still, Gabriel is too ignorant to be 'not even wrong' when he
posts at alt.talk.creationism. Why would he want to make a greater fool
of himself at talk.origins?
>: > :: gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >
>: > : >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>: > : >action, which is merely selecting information that already
>: > : >exists.
>: > :
>: > : Nonsense.
>: >
>: > Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>: > test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>: > information in the genome, rather than the "nonsense" that it's
>: > only selecting informant ion that's already there.
>: >
>: > [snip]
>:
>: Buy a biology book.
>
>Apparently you don't read the one you have - even the other
>poster Bob C. backtracked when he realized natural selection does
>no such thing. In your anger, you merely respond "buy a biology
>book" clearly under the mistaken notion natural selection does
>create brand new information in the genome. Perfect example of
>how unknowledgeable a typical believer in evolutionism is - they
>can't even correctly state what their own beliefs are, but rather
>throw insults to deflect from the truth that contradicts their
>beliefs. =(
Natural selection is part of the process of evolution. You are asking
erroneous questions that cannot be answered in the way you want them
answered. The answer is that your question shows that you do not
understand evolution and need to stop being so intentionally ignorant.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
VoiceOfReason
And you, like many creationists, will choose to stay ignorant rather
than make any attempt to learn anything about facts that refute your
bizarre religious beliefs.
If you HONESTLY want to learn something about biology, then make an
attempt to learn it. But if you're a typical dishonest creationist,
it's more likely you'll come up with further excuses to stay ignorant.
Matt Silberstein
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<4fpi95tecog0h544a...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >
>: >: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
>: >: all cross-posted postings anyway.
>: >:
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>: >: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
>: >: >exists.
>: >:
>: >: Nonsense.
>: >
>: >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>: >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>: >information in the genome
>:
>: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
>
>You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
>
> "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
> populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
> for such a change. Mutation is another"
>
>You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
>genome.
Natural selection affects the *frequency* in which you will see a
particular genome, it does not change the specific sequence of any
genome.
>So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
>recombination) is a source of new information, after originally
>saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
>mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
>selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
>information in the genome.
NS is one of the mechanism for change the frequency of a particular
sequence in a population. It can be seen as changing the "information"
in the *population*, not that in the genome of an individual organism.
>You are either ignorant of what you speak of, or were being
>dishonest and caught.
Or you don't distinguish between individuals and populations.
>Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
>scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
>information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
>already there*.
How are you determining what is "corruption"? In fact, how are you
measuring "information"? Isn't a duplication additional information?
How about a point mutation? How about a series of duplications and
point mutations?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>: >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>: >information in the genome
>:
>: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
>
>You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
>
> "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
> populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
> for such a change. Mutation is another"
>
>You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
>genome.
It does. I did not claim that it "produc[ed] brand new
information in the genome".
>So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
>recombination) is a source of new information
No. I said that they are the most common mechanisms of evolution
which produce new information. I did NOT use the word "only".
>after originally
>saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
>mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
>selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
>information in the genome.
"new information in the genome" is YOUR phrase. Mine is "change of
frequency of alleles in populations over time". Natural selection
causes the latter. It does not need to cause the former.
The whole question of "information" in the genome is rather silly in
the first place. Merely making a second copy of the same exact genetic
sequence and placing it in the genome right next to the first, can
have a drastic effect on the resulting life form. Moving that
sequence to another place likewise can have a dramatic effect. Both
are "new information".
>Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
>scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
>information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
>already there*.
"corruption" has no meaning in the question. "Corrupted information"
can be new information or old information. A one-nucleotide "error"
in the genome can cause a major change in the lifeform, if it is in
the right place. That change reflects new information, whether you
view the error as a "corruption" or not.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: Evolution: A change in allele frequencies within a population over
: time.
:
: So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
No, natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
but remaining dogs. In the entire recorded history of the human
race, natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
Repeating your erroneous understanding of science and refusing to learn
anything about evolution is not useful for you. It certainly persuades
me that you are not a believer at all, just a mocker of the faith.
VoiceOfReason
gabriel wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> : Evolution: A change in allele frequencies within a population over
> : time.
> :
> : So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
>
> No,
Look up the definition in a biology book some time.
> natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
> but remaining dogs.
Yes... did you expect differently? A dog doesn't give birth to a
different species, only to a slightly different dog. Over time, those
differences can result in a species that can no longer breed with the
original species. It doesn't happen in one step.
> In the entire recorded history of the human
> race,
That entire recorded history covers a few thousands years, and true
scientific observation has only existed a fraction of that time. It
can take MUCH longer than that for a larger species to evolve.
> natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
> generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
> evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
> on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
Wrong again. Speciation events have been observed both in the lab and
in the wild.
Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Evidence for Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
Case Histories of Speciation: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
VoiceOfReason
Free Lunch wrote:
<...>
> Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
> ignorant:
>
> "Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
> talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
> abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
> him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
> there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Too right.
Cory Albrecht
So, Gabriel, could you please tell me what is an example of the minimum
set of changes or "adaptations", as you call them, which would have to
happen to a population of dogs for you to agree that they are no longer
dogs?
Juan M
beliefs are correct and my facts are works of the devil, the antichrist
or some other supernatural, mythological being.
After all, you can quote in it your version of scripture.
>
Dan Listermann
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97qo951m6t5kvej2f...@4ax.com...
"Recorded history of the human race." You are asking quite a bit for a very
short period of time. Is this really what you need to understand evolution?
Cory Albrecht
Gabriel been shown these many, many times. I used to have a list six
specific ones that I would copypasta to him every time he'd make the
claim that speciation didn't happen. But after getting slapped in the
face so many times (by me and others) with examples he eventually moved
the goalposts to his current "but they are still just a kind of $X".
At some point I hope he'll answer how he defines "kind" (he hasn't yet,
despite many requests) or that he'll give an example set of minimum
changes for him to agree that the descendants of an $X would no longer
be an $X (again, avoids answering that despite many requests), but I
don;t know whether he's stubborn or just slap-happy from being forced to
admit to speciation.
Pastor Dave
>On Aug 25, 7:07�pm, gabriel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>
>> Please cite scientific research that shows
>> an observation and test/verification of
>> natural selection producing brand new
>> information in the genome, rather than
>> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
>> informant ion that's already there.
>
> Buy a biology book.
That is a cop out from someone who knows
nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
something that causes brand new information
in the genome and there is no such thing as
any evolution that can be observed that will.
You evolutionists can't even seem to understand
the English language!
Natural selection is just that! S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N !!!
It SELECTS and that word means that there must
be a choice made from what is available, otherwise
it is not SELECTION.
Natural selection can only "select" from what already
exists, or again, it is not "selection".
The English language does not change, because you
prefer to believe by faith in the opposite occurring.
Nor is it proper to assign a new meaning to the word
"selection" just because you want something to be true.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The greatest Bible software out there is found at:
Two of the greatest Windows utilities ever made!
WindowsXP/Vista/7, 32/64 bit (replaces XP ver):
CacheMan7 Single: http://cac71.notlong.com
CacheMan7 Two : http://cac72.notlong.com
StartEd Pro : http://started.notlong.com
"Wisdom is in the sight of him who has understanding,
but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth."
- Proverbs 17:24
Pastor Dave
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> If my facts don't agree with your religious beliefs
They don't. But they do agree with your religious beliefs,
since your belief is a religion and not science.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
><papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>On Aug 25, 7:07�pm, gabriel wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>>
>>> Please cite scientific research that shows
>>> an observation and test/verification of
>>> natural selection producing brand new
>>> information in the genome, rather than
>>> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
>>> informant ion that's already there.
>>
>> Buy a biology book.
>
>That is a cop out from someone who knows
>nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
Pastor Dave is hardly in any position to identify who knows or does not
know anything.
>
>Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
>something that causes brand new information
>in the genome and there is no such thing as
>any evolution that can be observed that will.
Pastor Dave is another in a long line of false preachers who
misrepresents evolution before he attacks his false description of it.
>You evolutionists can't even seem to understand
>the English language!
>
>Natural selection is just that! S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N !!!
I guess the concept of variation is just beyond your grasp, Pastor Dave,
or you are intentionally ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your
false doctrines.
>It SELECTS and that word means that there must
>be a choice made from what is available, otherwise
>it is not SELECTION.
>
>Natural selection can only "select" from what already
>exists, or again, it is not "selection".
>
>The English language does not change, because you
>prefer to believe by faith in the opposite occurring.
>
>Nor is it proper to assign a new meaning to the word
>"selection" just because you want something to be true.
Evolution is not just natural selection, no matter how many times you
try to sell that falsehood.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:35:26 -0700, "Juan M"
><juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> If my facts don't agree with your religious beliefs
>
>They don't. But they do agree with your religious beliefs,
>since your belief is a religion and not science.
Once again, Pastor Dave tries to spread his false doctrine and insults
those who have chosen to learn rather than remain ignorant.
Home schoolers beware. Pastor Dave does not understand science. He
misrepresents it. He repeatedly tells falsehoods. He appears to be proud
of the false claims he makes. He cannot be trusted.
VoiceOfReason
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >On Aug 25, 7:07�pm, gabriel wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> >>
> >> Please cite scientific research that shows
> >> an observation and test/verification of
> >> natural selection producing brand new
> >> information in the genome, rather than
> >> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
> >> informant ion that's already there.
> >
> > Buy a biology book.
>
> That is a cop out from someone who knows
> nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
>
> Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
> something that causes brand new information
> in the genome and there is no such thing as
> any evolution that can be observed that will.
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a
population over time. Hence, natural selection is most certainly an
example of evolution.
Now, unless you want to remain ignorant, get off your lazy ass and buy
a biology book.
<...>
Bob LeChevalier
>No, natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
>but remaining dogs. In the entire recorded history of the human
>race,
A mere 4000 years out of 4 billion years, with most of the time people
being so clueless that they couldn't have recognized it if it
happened.
Pastor Dave
<papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>> <papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 25, 7:07?pm, gabriel wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>> >>
>> >> Please cite scientific research that shows
>> >> an observation and test/verification of
>> >> natural selection producing brand new
>> >> information in the genome, rather than
>> >> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
>> >> informant ion that's already there.
>> >
>> > Buy a biology book.
>>
>> That is a cop out from someone who knows
>> nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
>>
>> Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
>> something that causes brand new information
>> in the genome and there is no such thing as
>> any evolution that can be observed that will.
>
> Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency
> within a population over time.
You can try to play all of the word games you want,
parroting what others who haven't done any real
research either say. But that won't change the facts
regarding natural selection, nor that it is the only
observed and repeatably testable evolution.
> Hence, natural selection is most certainly an example
> of evolution.
I said it was. And it is the only example, since it is
the only thing that has been observed, contrary to
your trying to imply that there are more examples,
without any evidence whatsoever that gives examples
that are observed, which is what is required for
something to be counted in as science.
Natural selection is exactly what I said it is and it
does not cause brand new information in the genome
and brand new information in the genome is exactly
what you claim happens, yet you cannot prove that
and yet demand that we all say that it is science.
> Now, unless you want to remain ignorant
I am not the one who is ignorant. I stated the truth.
You on the other hand, intentionally snipped what
I wrote, because you did not wish to face the truth
of what I said. And you are so ridiculous, that you
actually think that when you do that and post more
insults, that it somehow makes you look intelligent.
You actually seem to think that if you snip text,
that it means that it has disappeared from all
of usenet. <chuckle>
Here is what I wrote again. Now either prove where
and how what I said is in error, or have the integrity
to admit that it is correct.
You evolutionists can't even seem to understand
the English language!
Natural selection is just that! S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N !!!
It SELECTS and that word means that there must
be a choice made from what is available, otherwise
it is not SELECTION.
Natural selection can only "select" from what already
exists, or again, it is not "selection".
The English language does not change, because you
prefer to believe by faith in the opposite occurring.
Nor is it proper to assign a new meaning to the word
"selection" just because you want something to be true.
Now either deal with these facts, or run along and be
the little boy that we both know that you are.
Andrew
> In response to your subject line "Is Natural Selection Evolution?", no
> one has ever said (as far as I can recall) that natural selection is
> evolution, what has been said is that it is one of the mechanisms that
> causes evolution..
In reality NS ~prevents~ evolution (macroevolution) by selecting out
any (theorized) partial intermediates. Thus, your theory is bankrupt.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:13f99b48-6b03-4229...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
How, if it is selecting out, does that prevent evolution?
Wombat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:13f99b48-6b03-4229...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for showing (again) the depth of your ignorance, and the
superb use you make of straw.
Wombat
Devils Advocaat
Which if this is so we know his real name is ... Päronskaft!
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You chose to be ignorant. Don't blame your god for that decision.
Chris
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:13f99b48-6b03-4229...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
What on earth are you babbling about? What do you mean by "partial
intermediate"? That doesn't relate to anything in the real world. It
makes no sense, and it certainly bears no relation to anything having
to do with evolution.
Chris
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Hr6dndnmme1MHQLX...@earthlink.com...
Oh great, a new tact that will remain just like the rest, unexplained.
Bob LeChevalier
>Natural selection is evolution.
It is only part of the story.
>It is not however,
>something that causes brand new information
>in the genome and there is no such thing as
>any evolution that can be observed that will.
Of course there is. Mutation and recombination both add information.
>It SELECTS and that word means that there must
>be a choice made from what is available, otherwise
>it is not SELECTION.
It is a misnomer; there is no requirement that there be a choice.
>Natural selection can only "select" from what already
>exists, or again, it is not "selection".
But what exists is constantly changing - every generation.
>Nor is it proper to assign a new meaning to the word
>"selection" just because you want something to be true.
The phrase "natural selection" has a scientific meaning as a phrase
which may or may not have something to do with the layperson's meaning
of the word "selection". The scientific terms "barn" and "color" from
subatomic physics even more strikingly have nothing to do with the lay
meaning.
Bob LeChevalier
>>> Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
>>> something that causes brand new information
>>> in the genome and there is no such thing as
>>> any evolution that can be observed that will.
>>
>> Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency
>> within a population over time.
>
>You can try to play all of the word games you want,
>parroting what others who haven't done any real
>research either say. But that won't change the facts
>regarding natural selection, nor that it is the only
>observed and repeatably testable evolution.
Mutation has been observed. Recombination has been observed.
>> Hence, natural selection is most certainly an example
>> of evolution.
>
>I said it was. And it is the only example, since it is
>the only thing that has been observed,
Mutation has been observed. Recombination has been observed.
>Natural selection is exactly what I said it is and it
>does not cause brand new information in the genome
Mutation and recombination cause new information in the genome.
>and brand new information in the genome is exactly
>what you claim happens,
Actually, he made no such claim. "Information" is a term used by
creationists who don't really understand what the word means.
>yet you cannot prove that
>and yet demand that we all say that it is science.
Evolution is science because it makes testable predictions, and is
useful in producing MORE science.
>> Now, unless you want to remain ignorant
>
>I am not the one who is ignorant. I stated the truth.
"Truth" is for religionists. Evolution is *fact*.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
No.
>Thus, your theory is bankrupt.
It produces results. Creationism produces nothing but ignorance.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:07 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
:
: >: >Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
: >: >test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
: >: >information in the genome
: >:
: >: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
: >
: >You must not read what you write. You said, and I quote:
: >
: > "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
: > populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
: > for such a change. Mutation is another"
: >
: >You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
: >genome.
:
: It does. I did not claim that it "produc[ed] brand new
: information in the genome".
:
: >So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
: >recombination) is a source of new information
:
: No. I said that they are the most common mechanisms of evolution
: which produce new information. I did NOT use the word "only".
Doesn't matter if you didn't say "only" - what matters is you put
natural selection as *one such mechanism* (one of several) that
produces information in the genome. But then you just got done
saying:
: >: "Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does.
So again, you're caught in your lie. Now you're saying natural
selection *doesn't* do so, after just now trying to say "well I
never said it was the *only* mechanism which produces new
information. You continue to lie to cover up your original lie.
It's clear you can't be honest when debating evolutionism (the
fish to man version of evolution). Please ask yourself what are
you getting out of believing in such a lie that you have to lie
to defend it from the truth?
Take care.
:
: >after originally
: >saying "natural selection is one mechanism for such a change, and
: >mutation being *another* one" - clearly equating natural
: >selection and mutation as both being a way to create new
: >information in the genome.
:
: "new information in the genome" is YOUR phrase. Mine is "change of
: frequency of alleles in populations over time". Natural selection
: causes the latter. It does not need to cause the former.
:
: The whole question of "information" in the genome is rather silly in
: the first place. Merely making a second copy of the same exact genetic
: sequence and placing it in the genome right next to the first, can
: have a drastic effect on the resulting life form. Moving that
: sequence to another place likewise can have a dramatic effect. Both
: are "new information".
:
: >Now that you've switched your tune, please cite an online
: >scientific research paper that proves mutations create brand new
: >information in the genome, rather than corrupting *what was
: >already there*.
:
: "corruption" has no meaning in the question. "Corrupted information"
: can be new information or old information. A one-nucleotide "error"
: in the genome can cause a major change in the lifeform, if it is in
: the right place. That change reflects new information, whether you
: view the error as a "corruption" or not.
:
: lojbab
Cory Albrecht
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 7:07 pm, gabriel wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>>>
>>> Please cite scientific research that shows
>>> an observation and test/verification of
>>> natural selection producing brand new
>>> information in the genome, rather than
>>> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
>>> informant ion that's already there.
>>
>> Buy a biology book.
>
> That is a cop out from someone who knows
> nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
>
> Natural selection is evolution.
No. Natural selection is one of the *mechanisms* of evolution.
> It is not however,
> something that causes brand new information
> in the genome
No scientist claims that it does, whatever definition of information you
might want to use.
> and there is no such thing as
> any evolution that can be observed that will.
Actually, that would be where mutations come in. For an example, go look
up polyploidy and Hugo de Vries's primrose.
>
> You evolutionists can't even seem to understand
> the English language!
Nor can you, it seems, since you're spending your time arguing against a
straw man.
>
> Natural selection is just that! S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N !!!
>
> It SELECTS and that word means that there must
> be a choice made from what is available, otherwise
> it is not SELECTION.
>
> Natural selection can only "select" from what already
> exists, or again, it is not "selection".
>
> The English language does not change, because you
> prefer to believe by faith in the opposite occurring.
>
> Nor is it proper to assign a new meaning to the word
> "selection" just because you want something to be true.
>
The only person here who has assigned new meanings would be you in that
sentence up above: "Natural selection is evolution".
Would you care to try again, sans straw man?
Bob LeChevalier
>: >
>: > "Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in
>: > populations over time. Natural selection is one mechanism
>: > for such a change. Mutation is another"
>: >
>: >You clearly claimed natural selection creates such change in the
>: >genome.
>:
>: It does. I did not claim that it "produc[ed] brand new
>: information in the genome".
>:
>: >So now you change your tune and say only mutation (and
>: >recombination) is a source of new information
>:
>: No. I said that they are the most common mechanisms of evolution
>: which produce new information. I did NOT use the word "only".
>
>Doesn't matter if you didn't say "only" - what matters is you put
>natural selection as *one such mechanism* (one of several) that
>produces information in the genome.
No I didn't. I said that it is one mechanism for "change in frequency
of alleles in populations over time" (see quote above).
>So again, you're caught in your lie. Now you're saying natural
>selection *doesn't* do so, after just now trying to say "well I
>never said it was the *only* mechanism which produces new
>information.
YOU are the one talking about "new information". I am talking about
evolution.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Evolution: A change in allele frequencies within a population over
: > : time.
: > :
: > : So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
: >
: > No,
:
: Look up the definition in a biology book some time.
:
: > natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
: > but remaining dogs.
:
: Yes... did you expect differently? A dog doesn't give birth to a
: different species, only to a slightly different dog.
You didn't read carefully. I've said time and again, even in this
post, "over generations".
: Over time, those
: differences can result in a species that can no longer breed with the
: original species. It doesn't happen in one step.
:
: > In the entire recorded history of the human
: > race,
:
: That entire recorded history covers a few thousands years, and true
: scientific observation has only existed a fraction of that time. It
: can take MUCH longer than that for a larger species to evolve.
:
: > natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
: > generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
: > evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
: > on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
:
: Wrong again. Speciation events have been observed both in the lab and
: in the wild.
Speciation is not the fish to man version of evolution you
believe in. Speciation is populations of dogs evolving over
generations but *remaining dogs* no matter how often they adapt,
and all we've ever seen in the entire recorded history of the
human race.
Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
of evolution you believe in. For example, populations of [fruit
flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [fruit flies] at all. You can replace [fruit flies] with
any animal you wish in that sentence. That version of evolution
has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable - one can
only believe in it. Please cite a scientific paper that shows
this version of Speciation to back up your belief. The fact is,
such a thing has never happened and Speciation has never shown
any such thing.
:
: Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
:
: Evidence for Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
gabriel
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Not at all - just proving what you believe in is impossible to
observe, impossible to test and impossible to verify. It's that
simple - not science, and certainly not fact. Glad you agree.
:
Matt Silberstein
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<fkk0a55vjh6nuht7n...@4ax.com> wrote:
It produces changes in allele frequencies. How are you not grasping
that?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
As long as you refuse to learn how science works, you will continue to
make false claims. You will continue to mock the god you claim to
worship by calling him a trickster.
Go. Learn. Repent of your intentional ignorance.
Dan Listermann
VoiceOfReason
Using the definition that biology uses is not "word games." It's an
accurate definition of what we see happening -- one that evo-deniers
can't squirm away from.
> But that won't change the facts
> regarding natural selection, nor that it is the only
> observed and repeatably testable evolution.
As Bob described, both mutation and recombination have also been
observed.
> > Hence, natural selection is most certainly an example
> > of evolution.
>
> I said it was. And it is the only example, since it is
> the only thing that has been observed, contrary to
> your trying to imply that there are more examples,
> without any evidence whatsoever that gives examples
> that are observed, which is what is required for
> something to be counted in as science.
Wrong again. Genetic drift, another mechanism of evolution, has also
been observed.
> Natural selection is exactly what I said it is and it
> does not cause brand new information in the genome
> and brand new information in the genome is exactly
> what you claim happens, yet you cannot prove that
> and yet demand that we all say that it is science.
Wrong again. As Bob described, both mutation and recombination have
also been observed.
> > Now, unless you want to remain ignorant
>
> I am not the one who is ignorant. I stated the truth.
You are the one who refuses to accept any evidence that disproves your
perverse view of the world. That's called willful ignorance.
> You on the other hand, intentionally snipped what
> I wrote, because you did not wish to face the truth
> of what I said.
What you wrote was typical anti-science evo-denier horseshit. I'll
let others trash your misrepresentations of science in detail.
> And you are so ridiculous, that you
> actually think that when you do that and post more
> insults, that it somehow makes you look intelligent.
> You actually seem to think that if you snip text,
> that it means that it has disappeared from all
> of usenet. <chuckle>
Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are showing again, "pastor". :-D
> Here is what I wrote again. Now either prove where
> and how what I said is in error, or have the integrity
> to admit that it is correct.
See above.
Juan M
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:d824fc10-dace-4e7b...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Please don't confuse me with the facts. I've got faith.
>
Pastor Dave
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Neither mutation nor recombination qualify as what
you people claim happens. And they are still selection.
Bob LeChevalier
>Neither mutation nor recombination qualify as what
>you people claim happens.
Wrong.
>And they are still selection.
No they aren't part of natural selection.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:09:55 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>: Look up the definition in a biology book some time.
>:
>: > natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
>: > but remaining dogs.
>:
>: Yes... did you expect differently? A dog doesn't give birth to a
>: different species, only to a slightly different dog.
>
>You didn't read carefully. I've said time and again, even in this
>post, "over generations".
Thousands of generations. No two generations are much different from
each other, but after thousands of generations, the descendent can be
quite different from the ancestor.
>: > natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
>: > generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
>: > evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
>: > on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
>:
>: Wrong again. Speciation events have been observed both in the lab and
>: in the wild.
>
>Speciation is not the fish to man version of evolution you
>believe in.
Speciation is a process that is necessary for evolution to produce
"fish to man".
>Speciation is populations of dogs evolving over
>generations but *remaining dogs* no matter how often they adapt,
No. If they remain dogs, then there has not been speciation. Some of
the descendents have to become something that is similar to a dog but
which will not breed true with a dog in order for speciation to have
occurred.
>Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
>of evolution you believe in.
See the cited pages below.
>: Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>:
>: Evidence for Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
>:
>: Case Histories of Speciation: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
You have a hopelessly simplistic concept of what it means to "observe"
something, to "test" something, and to "verify" something. Take some
serious science classes, idiot.
backspace
> Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in populations over
> time. Natural selection is one mechanism for such a change. Mutation
Evolution and NS doesn't have a single true meaning. The concept
Darwin, Halloy Wallace, Hutton, Matthews had a 150 years ago had
nothing to do with genes, they didn't know about it. The only place
Darwin defined what he meant by NS is:
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection....."
Notice that this has nothing to do with genes or alleles but is a
tautology that has nothing to do either with getting naturaled or
making decisions, NS was just a thumb suck cock-up term Darwin stole
from Mathews. Nobody seem capable of understanding this:
Lets strip out NS from the the passage to get to the underlying
tautology which is originally from Aristotle and James Hutton
=== rephrase replace NS with Roger rabbit ===
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term Roger Rabbit..."
=== rephrase ===
When each variation, if useful, is preserved, Roger Rabbit or
Natural Selection happens
=== Tautological essence ===
Useful variation are preserved - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
See this tautology has nothing to do with getting naturaled or
rabbited, NS, RR or "getting drunk" are arbitrary terms. Nobody
understands this not Ken Ham, neither Wilkins - nobody leading society
to an ever deepening abyss of madness and insanity. Because the issue
isn't YEC or atheism , it is Language , sort your language out and rid
your of tautological thinking, then only can we address the issues.
backspace
> Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
> test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
> information in the genome, rather than the "nonsense" that it's
> only selecting informant ion that's already there.
This is the mistake my fellow YEC make. The information issue wasn't
known by Darwin. Imagine you get in a time machine and have to explain
to somebody in 1860 why Darwin was wrong, you can't reference info
theory or genes. All you can talk about was DArwin's tautologies and
how he ad-hoc associated NS ( a term not a concept) with this
tautology.
backspace
> Natural selection is the filtering part.
Cite Origin of Species, where was what filtered? Remember you can't
talk about genes if you are talking about natural selection because
the concept Darwin had with natural selection had nothing to do with
genes. What is your concept?
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Darwin's essential idea that evolution happened because of _variation_
and _natural selection_ is still correct. He managed to discover this
despite the fact that he had no idea what possible mechanism there was
for variation. As the mechanisms for variation were slowly understood
over the century that followed Darwin's remarkable discovery, people
realized that his insight was all the greater because he did not
understand what precisely was causing this.
The only scientist who was truly in a position to have come up with a
similar understanding was one of the giants upon whom Darwin managed to
rely for his discovery, Linnaeus, because it was he who had shown by his
meticulous work that there was a clear relationship among organisms.
backspace
> Darwin's essential idea that evolution happened because of _variation_
> and _natural selection_ is still correct.
natural selection? Do agree that as a two word term "love making" ,
"natural selection" , "Battle Zone" only means whatever the intention
of signal sender intends it to mean.
Variation like selection as a single word has no single true meaning
and it isn't a concept but a means of communicating some concept.
Everything that is in existence has to "vary". Variation in one
context simply means "being in existence", atoms vary, electrons spin
- variations.
=== Lets rephrase a bit: ===
Darwin's essential idea that transmutation happened because beings are
in existence.
Is this what you mean, if not then where was the technical concept
formally defined and why must a single word - variation be used to
encode for this concept. What is the concept and who has this concept
and when did he have it with what background information . Remember
what PHD in biophysics Noshellswell said: Theories are always
formally defined. Who formally defined a concept or theory that is
labeled variation?
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sep 7, 12:28�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> Darwin's essential idea that evolution happened because of _variation_
>> and _natural selection_ is still correct.
>You and Ken Ham don't seem to get my point: What is your concept with
>natural selection? Do agree that as a two word term "love making" ,
>"natural selection" , "Battle Zone" only means whatever the intention
>of signal sender intends it to mean.
>
>Variation like selection as a single word has no single true meaning
>and it isn't a concept but a means of communicating some concept.
It is not my fault that you defiantly refuse to learn what 'natural
selection' means to scientists, no matter how many times people have
tried to help you understand. You have chosen to be ignorant. You have
chosen to play the fool.
You do not have a criticism of evolution because you have made certain
that you do not understand it. Your ignorance is your problem. We have
tried to help you, but you worship ignorance and act as if your god
demands that you know nothing. Stay that way if you like. We cannot
force you to learn. We cannot stop you from mocking the god you claim to
worship.
>Everything that is in existence has to "vary". Variation in one
>context simply means "being in existence", atoms vary, electrons spin
>- variations.
Your ignorance is your problem. Since you refuse to learn, don't expect
anyone to take your supposed objections seriously. You have made it
clear that you do not take this seriously.
>=== Lets rephrase a bit: ===
>Darwin's essential idea that transmutation happened because beings are
>in existence.
You really need to stop rephrasing what you do not understand.
>Is this what you mean, if not then where was the technical concept
>formally defined and why must a single word - variation be used to
>encode for this concept. What is the concept and who has this concept
>and when did he have it with what background information . Remember
>what PHD in biophysics Noshellswell said: Theories are always
>formally defined. Who formally defined a concept or theory that is
>labeled variation?
Scientists. It's your fault alone that you have chosen to remain
ignorant.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Juan M
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ojg8a51tdrpfeqi9k...@4ax.com...
Prove Jesus said it.
YAWN!
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I don't really care. It is the supposed believers in Jesus who have
committed themselves to ignorance and repeating falsehoods.
VoiceOfReason
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:38:31 -0700, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:ojg8a51tdrpfeqi9k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:43:45 -0700 (PDT), backspace
Now, now... The anti-science wackos who are into evolution denial are
a minority among Christians (annoyingly, a very loud and obnoxious
minority...)
Free Lunch
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I agree completely. I was not attacking all Christians, just the ones
who teach doctrines that have been shown by evidence to all that the
doctrine is false. Sadly, this minority which is committed to ignorance
and falsehoods is very loud in proclaiming how little they know and how
much they got wrong.
For me, the fact that Young Earth Creationism has been shown to be wrong
by an incomprehensibly large amount of evidence was the first step in
persuading me not to believe, first in that erroneous doctrine,
eventually in all claims about all gods.
Juan M
I have nothing against Christians. Some of my best friends are.
It's when they close their minds to things like the round earth, basic
astronomy and natural history that they get to be a pain.
Many of the Christian ethical ideals are quite admirable.
But, the fanatics, just like fanatical Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Druids and
Atheists can be a real danger to society.
(Actually, I have never met a fanatical Druid, but I imagine they worship
bushes, too!)
Bob LeChevalier
>On Aug 11, 11:56�am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in populations over
>> time. �Natural selection is one mechanism for such a change. �Mutation
>> is another, and a major component in modern evolutionary theory.
>
>Evolution and NS doesn't have a single true meaning. The concept
>Darwin, Halloy Wallace, Hutton, Matthews had a 150 years ago had
>nothing to do with genes, they didn't know about it.
So? Science has advanced in 150 years. There is no need to defend
Darwin, since his theory is not the current theory.
>The only place
>Darwin defined what he meant by NS is:
>"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
>useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
>its relation to man's power of selection....."
>
>Notice that this has nothing to do with genes or alleles but is a
>tautology
You seem to have a strange meaning for "tautology" in mind. The above
is a *definition* of the phrase as he used it.
The key to Darwin's terminology is the "if useful, is preserved".
There is nothing tautological about that.
>that has nothing to do either with getting naturaled
???
Darwin was using "natural" selection in contrast to artificial (man's
power) selection.
>Lets strip out NS from the the passage to get to the underlying
>tautology which is originally from Aristotle and James Hutton
There is no tautology.
>=== rephrase replace NS with Roger rabbit ===
>"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
>useful, is preserved, by the term Roger Rabbit..."
>=== rephrase ===
>When each variation, if useful, is preserved, Roger Rabbit or
>Natural Selection happens
No. "When each variation, if useful, is preserved," that IS (by
definition) natural selection.
It is not a tautology. There is nothing inherent to the nature of
preservation that "usefulness" would be selected for.
>=== Tautological essence ===
>Useful variation are preserved - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
>See this tautology
Not a tautology.
>has nothing to do with getting naturaled or rabbited,
No one says that it does, especially since there is no meaning to
either of those two words as verbs. But English adjectives do not
have to have a verbal meaning. Nor does "natural selection" have to
have a meaning that is composite of "natural" and "selection". English
phrases often have a meaning that is not strictly composite.
VoiceOfReason
That's another thing that's ironic about creationism... It's rampant
stupidity creates more atheists that Richard Dawkins could ever hope
to create.
backspace
> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 11, 11:56 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Evolution is any change in frequency of alleles in populations over
> >> time. Natural selection is one mechanism for such a change. Mutation
> >> is another, and a major component in modern evolutionary theory.
>
> >Evolution and NS doesn't have a single true meaning. The concept
> >Darwin, Halloy Wallace, Hutton, Matthews had a 150 years ago had
> >nothing to do with genes, they didn't know about it.
>
> So? Science has advanced in 150 years. There is no need to defend
> Darwin, since his theory is not the current theory.
I am not dealing with the current theory ( what theory in anycase ?)
but with the concept as understood by a reader of Spencer (sold a
million books). Spencer and his ideas were integral to the way a
reader in 1860 interpreted OoS. And thus I am dealing with their
tautological thinking such as:
"....I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more
accurate, ..."
Juan M
Why can't we see Venus at midnight?
Why does the Galapagos have so many varieties of finches?
Why do I have blue eyes, even though neither of my parents so?
How did that layer of clam shells get up thousands of feet into the
mountains?
What happens if I set a spark to this
gas................................................ oops!
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: Pastor Dave wrote:
: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > <papa...@cybertown.com> spake thusly:
: >
: >
: > >On Aug 25, 7:07?pm, gabriel wrote:
: > >
: > >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: > >>
: > >> Please cite scientific research that shows
: > >> an observation and test/verification of
: > >> natural selection producing brand new
: > >> information in the genome, rather than
: > >> the "nonsense" that it's only selecting
: > >> informant ion that's already there.
: > >
: > > Buy a biology book.
: >
: > That is a cop out from someone who knows
: > nothing at all and believe me, it shows.
: >
: > Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
: > something that causes brand new information
: > in the genome and there is no such thing as
: > any evolution that can be observed that will.
:
: Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a
: population over time. Hence, natural selection is most certainly an
: example of evolution.
Please detail how natural selection generates new information in
the genome. The fact is, it doesn't - it only leads to selecting
out what is already there. You are either unknowledgeable of what
evolutionism claims (as some are honest enough to point out
natural selection does no such thing), or are telling a lie.
Second of all, change in allele frequence has never once in the
entire recorded history of the human race led to populations of
[dogs] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
no longer [dogs]. That remains true no matter what animal you
replace with [dogs] in that sentence.
Science can repeatedly falsify the fish to man version of
evolution with repeated observations AND tests AND verifications:
no matter how many generations go by, populations of [dogs] will
continue to produce nothing but animals that are clearly still
[dogs] no matter how much they adapt.
But unfortunately, some are so determined to deny God, they're
willing to believe populations of tiny fish evolved over
generations eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
beings, along with most everything else.
It is written:
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in
his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done
abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
- Psalms 14:1 KJVR
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the
truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
- Romans 1:18-23 KJVR
All glory and honor to God the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ!
:
: Now, unless you want to remain ignorant, get off your lazy ass and buy
: a biology book.
:
: <...>
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
: >>> Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
: >>> something that causes brand new information
: >>> in the genome and there is no such thing as
: >>> any evolution that can be observed that will.
: >>
: >> Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency
: >> within a population over time.
: >
: >You can try to play all of the word games you want,
: >parroting what others who haven't done any real
: >research either say. But that won't change the facts
: >regarding natural selection, nor that it is the only
: >observed and repeatably testable evolution.
:
: Mutation has been observed.
Mutations have never been observed creating brand new information
in the genome, rather than corrupting what was already there.
Please cite scientific source that clearly shows otherwise,
rather than just claiming it does.
In full blown animals, science shows us that mutations have
always lead to creatures that were weaker than their counterparts
- which given how natural selection works it would cause them to
die off first without fail, being weaker than the rest. Show a
single scientific test case where a full-blown animal gains a
physical mutation that makes it stronger than it's siblings and
made it stronger to live while the rest of them die out lacking
that mutation. Fact is, there's no such case. More fabrications
necessary to maintain the lie of fish to man evolution.
Meanwhile a single cell has more meaningfully encoded information
in the DNA than the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and
the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon.
Only a fool would say such meaningfully decoded information and
the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded "just happened" by
natural chance.
: Recombination has been observed.
:
: >> Hence, natural selection is most certainly an example
: >> of evolution.
: >
: >I said it was. And it is the only example, since it is
: >the only thing that has been observed,
:
: Mutation has been observed. Recombination has been observed.
:
: >Natural selection is exactly what I said it is and it
: >does not cause brand new information in the genome
:
: Mutation and recombination cause new information in the genome.
:
: >and brand new information in the genome is exactly
: >what you claim happens,
:
: Actually, he made no such claim. "Information" is a term used by
: creationists who don't really understand what the word means.
:
: >yet you cannot prove that
: >and yet demand that we all say that it is science.
:
: Evolution is science because it makes testable predictions, and is
: useful in producing MORE science.
:
: >> Now, unless you want to remain ignorant
: >
: >I am not the one who is ignorant. I stated the truth.
:
: "Truth" is for religionists. Evolution is *fact*.
:
: lojbab
Dan Listermann
Mutations are merely chemical errors. There is zero guidance in their
creation. They just happen. While far and away most are harmful or neutral
at best, there is no reason that some should not be helpful. NO REASON. You
really don't understand this, do you?
VoiceOfReason
"Evolutionism" claims nothing. That's a buzz word made up by
creationists to make it sound like a religious belief. Obviously you
don't remember (or choose to forget) that the last time creationists
tried that ploy in the courts they got their asses handed to them.
And since you don't understand the definition of evolution, you're
hardly in a position to question someone else's knowledge.
> Second of all, change in allele frequence has never once in the
> entire recorded history of the human race led to populations of
> [dogs] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
> no longer [dogs]. That remains true no matter what animal you
> replace with [dogs] in that sentence.
Which is a fatuous claim, as has been explained to you elsewhere in
this thread. Regurgitating the same flawed reasoning is dishonest on
your part.
Also, speciation events HAVE been observed, both in the lab and in the
wild... which was also pointed out to you earlier. More dishonesty on
your part.
> Science can repeatedly falsify the fish to man version of
> evolution with repeated observations AND tests AND verifications:
> no matter how many generations go by, populations of [dogs] will
> continue to produce nothing but animals that are clearly still
> [dogs] no matter how much they adapt.
Another lie. Science has revealed overwhelming evidence for evolution
for over 150 years.
> But unfortunately, some are so determined to deny God, they're
> willing to believe populations of tiny fish evolved over
> generations eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> beings, along with most everything else.
So you're ignorant of Christianity too, eh? Most mainstream Christian
denominations accept the fact of evolution. Claiming otherwise is
just another example of typical creationist dishonesty.
<gratuitous false piety snipped>
backspace
> Mutations have never been observed creating brand new information
> in the genome, rather than corrupting what was already there.
right hand and OoS in his left. We need to explain why Darwin turned
the world upside down back then within their reference frame.
> - which given how natural selection works it would cause them to
> die off first without fail, being weaker than the rest.
Other then noting they died how was their weakness measured?
> Meanwhile a single cell has more meaningfully encoded information
> in the DNA than the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica,
Again irrelevant to what Spencer knew who had a profound influence on
Darwin , sold over a million books that man Spencer.
> Only a fool would say such meaningfully decoded information and
> the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded "just happened" by
> natural chance.
Who exactly says it happened by natural chance? Not Wilkins, neither
Dawkins. They say non-random to which i replied "thus directed?". They
said no, well what then.
backspace
> Mutations are merely chemical errors. There is zero guidance in their
> creation. They just happen. While far and away most are harmful or neutral
> at best, there is no reason that some should not be helpful. NO REASON. You
> really don't understand this, do you?
Who are you interpreting , certainly not Darwin.
Dan Listermann
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b560f3f-02bf-4b31...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Darwin knew nothing of genitics, much less the mechanisms of mutation. He
only knew that mutations seemed to happen.
backspace
> : Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a
> : population over time.
And until you tell me who defined it you are not even wrong.
> Hence, natural selection is most certainly an
> : example of evolution.
Natural selection as a two word term doesn't have a single true
meaning. It depends what you define as a natural selection, since we
don't know we can't even say you are wrong.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution
"....C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in
action, which is merely selecting information that already exists...."
What is aig talking about. The concept darwin had with ns had nothing
to do with information theory or genes. He was referring to Spencer's
concept of the "survival of the most suitable". And the question is
other than nothing the stuff survived how was their fitness or
suitability measured.
> Please detail how natural selection generates new information in
> the genome. The fact is, it doesn't - it only leads to selecting
> out what is already there.
What naturaled and who did the selecting?
> You are either unknowledgeable of what
> evolutionism claims (as some are honest enough to point out
> natural selection does no such thing), or are telling a lie.
The abstract authority Mr.Evolutionism doesn't claim anything, which
person are you referring to. ? Who claimed what when and where.
> Second of all, change in allele frequence has never once in the
> entire recorded history of the human race led to populations of
> [dogs] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
> no longer [dogs].
Everything that is in existence has to change. Who says "change in
gene frequencies"...
backspace
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And by mutations he didn't mean genes, today mutations refer to genes.
A clear example of one word not having a single true meaning. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
Bob LeChevalier
> Do agree that as a two word term "love making" ,
>"natural selection" , "Battle Zone" only means whatever the intention
>of signal sender intends it to mean.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. The person who invents
the phrase often has considerable influence on how the phrase is
understood, but is not the only determining factor. Still, it is rare
that a phrase that has a life *as a phrase* as opposed to as merely
words that happened to be adjacent in a speech or writing event, means
solely what the component words mean.
And when they have had a hundred and fifty years with a certain
meaning derived from the intended meaning of the person who first
promulgated the phrase, the component meaning has rather little
import.
>Variation like selection as a single word has no single true meaning
>and it isn't a concept but a means of communicating some concept.
>Everything that is in existence has to "vary". Variation in one
>context simply means "being in existence", atoms vary, electrons spin
>- variations.
Actually, at the time of Darwin, the concept that the world was
constantly varying was NOT accepted. The immutability of God's
creation was the order of the day.
>=== Lets rephrase a bit: ===
>Darwin's essential idea that transmutation happened because beings are
>in existence.
No.
>Is this what you mean, if not then where was the technical concept
>formally defined and why must a single word - variation be used to
>encode for this concept.
"variation" in a biological context has a jargon meaning specific to
the subject. As with most technical jargon, that meaning is accepted
by those working in the field, and has nothing to do with how the word
might be used by people not working in the field.
It is NOT "encoding the concept" of change as it might be used by lay
people.
As to why a single word is so used - simple. Because they can, and no
one has the right to stop them. I've often cited the use of two other
common words "barn" and "color" in subatomic physics, where those
words refer to concepts entirely unrelated to farm buildings or
portions of the spectrum of light.
>What is the concept
Read a biology text.
>and who has this concept
Evolutionary biologists.
>and when did he have it with what background information.
One would have to be a historian of the field to have any clue on
that. It hardly matters. The word is used NOW as it is, with the
jargon meaning that it has.
>Remember
>what PHD in biophysics Noshellswell said: Theories are always
>formally defined.
Yes.
>Who formally defined a concept or theory that is labeled variation?
A "concept" is not a theory. Nor is a word.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:32:47 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>: >>> Natural selection is evolution. It is not however,
>: >>> something that causes brand new information
>: >>> in the genome and there is no such thing as
>: >>> any evolution that can be observed that will.
>: >>
>: >> Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency
>: >> within a population over time.
>: >
>: >You can try to play all of the word games you want,
>: >parroting what others who haven't done any real
>: >research either say. But that won't change the facts
>: >regarding natural selection, nor that it is the only
>: >observed and repeatably testable evolution.
>:
>: Mutation has been observed.
>
>Mutations have never been observed creating brand new information
>in the genome,
By the definition used in information theory, which seems to be what
you invoke when you mention the word, every mutation introduces new
"information" into the genome.
>rather than corrupting what was already there.
Sorry, but "corrupting" is a value judgment on the new information
that is created by a mutation. The new information can be described
as a "corruption" of the old information, but since the new
information is still meaningful in the coding system, and thus can be
used to create a new structure to some protein, or some new switch
affecting other DNA, it IS information, and it is new information.
>Please cite scientific source that clearly shows otherwise,
>rather than just claiming it does.
>In full blown animals, science shows us that mutations have
>always lead to creatures that were weaker than their counterparts
False.
And what is a "full blown animal" anyway?
>- which given how natural selection works it would cause them to
>die off first without fail, being weaker than the rest.
sickle cell syndrome is a mutation that causes increased
susceptibility to "sickle cell anemia", but it does not make people
"weaker" because it also conveys malaria-resistance - and malaria is a
greater cause of weakness.
The mutation that allows Europeans to digest milk easily makes them
stronger and better able to get vitamin D from that source.
>Show a
>single scientific test case where a full-blown animal gains a
>physical mutation that makes it stronger than it's siblings and
>made it stronger to live while the rest of them die out lacking
>that mutation. Fact is, there's no such case.
Wrong.
>Meanwhile a single cell has more meaningfully encoded information
>in the DNA than the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and
>the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon.
>Only a fool would say such meaningfully decoded information and
>the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded "just happened" by
>natural chance.
Your inability to accept reality does not mean that it isn't reality.
Bob LeChevalier
The use of words in 1860 must be understood in the context of what was
known in 1860. In that context, the words were in no way
"tautological".
backspace
Other than noting the organism survived how did Spencer measure its
fitness?
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:09:55 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: ><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
: >: Look up the definition in a biology book some time.
: >:
: >: > natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
: >: > but remaining dogs.
: >:
: >: Yes... did you expect differently? A dog doesn't give birth to a
: >: different species, only to a slightly different dog.
: >
: >You didn't read carefully. I've said time and again, even in this
: >post, "over generations".
:
: Thousands of generations. No two generations are much different from
: each other, but after thousands of generations, the descendent can be
: quite different from the ancestor.
:
: >: > natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
: >: > generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
: >: > evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
: >: > on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
: >:
: >: Wrong again. Speciation events have been observed both in the lab and
: >: in the wild.
: >
: >Speciation is not the fish to man version of evolution you
: >believe in.
:
: Speciation is a process that is necessary for evolution to produce
: "fish to man".
:
: >Speciation is populations of dogs evolving over
: >generations but *remaining dogs* no matter how often they adapt,
:
: No. If they remain dogs, then there has not been speciation. Some of
: the descendents have to become something that is similar to a dog but
: which will not breed true with a dog in order for speciation to have
: occurred.
:
:
: >Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
: >of evolution you believe in.
:
: See the cited pages below.
:
: >: Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
: >:
: >: Evidence for Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
: >:
: >: Case Histories of Speciation: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
:
Not a single version that matches the fish to man version of
evolution. Again:
Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
of evolution you believe in. For example, populations of [fruit
flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [fruit flies] at all. You can replace [fruit flies] with
any animal you wish in that sentence. That version of evolution
has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable - one can
only believe in it. Please cite a scientific paper that shows
this version of Speciation to back up your belief. The fact is,
such a thing has never happened and Speciation has never shown
any such thing.
: lojbab
gabriel
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:mq42a5t7nhvptrifi...@4ax.com...
: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:26:40 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
: > <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > : "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : news:97qo951m6t5kvej2f...@4ax.com...
: > : > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:09:34 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > : > <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : Evolution: A change in allele frequencies within a population over
: > : > : time.
: > : > :
: > : > : So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
: > : >
: > : > No, natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
: > : > but remaining dogs. In the entire recorded history of the human
: > : > race, natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
: > : > generations into animals that are no longer dogs, or bacteria
: > : > evolving over generations into what is no longer bacteria, and so
: > : > on - the fish to man version of evolution they cling to.
: > :
: > : "Recorded history of the human race." You are asking quite a bit for a
: > very
: > : short period of time. Is this really what you need to understand
: > evolution?
: >
: > Not at all - just proving what you believe in is impossible to
: > observe, impossible to test and impossible to verify. It's that
: > simple - not science, and certainly not fact. Glad you agree.
: > :
: Can you not observe the artifacts of paleontology?
:
Sure can. Can't observe (or even agree with) the beliefs they
come up with when looking at them, however, which is the point
you continue to avoid like a plague.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
>
>Not a single version that matches the fish to man version of
>evolution. Again:
>
>Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
>of evolution you believe in. For example, populations of [fruit
>flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
>longer [fruit flies] at all. You can replace [fruit flies] with
>any animal you wish in that sentence. That version of evolution
>has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable - one can
>only believe in it. Please cite a scientific paper that shows
>this version of Speciation to back up your belief.
Your question has been asked repeatedly and many people have tried to
get you to understand why your question assumes facts not in evidence
and is an argumentative attack when cannot be justified. If you bothered
to learn some science, you would stop asking it because you would
understand the erroneous assumptions that are built into the question.
>The fact is,
>such a thing has never happened and Speciation has never shown
>any such thing.
The fact is that all of the evidence points to a common ancestor and
your ignorance of that evidence does not change things in any way.
Bob LeChevalier
Ask Spencer (who wasn't a scientist, and therefore wasn't measuring
anything; he was a philosopher and sociologist). Spencer's choice of
phrase is utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
Darwin explained in his book what he meant by "natural selection". The
choice of phrase is unimportant. Darwin's reference to Spencer's
phrase was not in the original publication, but was added in the 5th
edition in 1869, so it could not have been important to the exposition
of the theory, which was already well-known before that edition.
As for this silly tautology argument, Wikipedia addresses it
adequately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
<However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own
< and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism
< of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key
< requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of
< heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest",
< in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival
< and reproduction. However, natural selection is not just survival of
< the fittest. Natural selection is the portion of variation in
< reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters (see the
< article on natural selection).
<
<If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of
< survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows
< mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters
< that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency
< over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by
< natural selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead
< to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no
< meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if
< improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not
< heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase
< in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does
< not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce";
< rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore
< propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival
< and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it
< hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting
< heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply
< confirmed.)
<
<Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Dr. Michael
< Shermer addresses this argument in his 1997 book, Why People Believe
< Weird Things, in which he points out that although tautologies are
< sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and that
< scientific principles like natural selection are testable and
< falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power. Shermer points out,
< as an example, that population genetics accurately demonstrate when
< natural selection will and will not effect change on a population.
< Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same
< geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural
< selection.[12]
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:34:23 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: See the cited pages below.
>:
>: >: Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>: >:
>: >: Evidence for Speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
>: >:
>: >: Case Histories of Speciation: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
>Not a single version that matches the fish to man version of
>evolution.
Wrong.
>Again:
>Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
>of evolution you believe in.
I don't "believe in" a "version of evolution".
>For example, populations of [fruit
>flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
>longer [fruit flies] at all. You can replace [fruit flies] with
>any animal you wish in that sentence.
All of the above cites qualify. Each new species is clearly not the
same species as the old species.
Dan Listermann
Well I can understand that if you look at everything through a "biblical
data" perspective. I recall my first science class started in the Garden of
Eden. I have since grown up.
duke
>gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:56:10 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>: The newsgroup is "talk.origins", not "talk.origin", and they reject
>>: all cross-posted postings anyway.
>>:
>>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>: >C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in
>>: >action, which is merely selecting information that already
>>: >exists.
>>:
>>: Nonsense.
>>
>>Please cite scientific research that shows an observation and
>>test/verification of natural selection producing brand new
>>information in the genome
>
>"Natural selection" doesn't do so, and no one claims that it does. No
>discussion of evolution can be limited to "natural selection".
>Recombination and mutation are the most common sources of new
>information in the genome.
Actually, it's the reverse. Evolution is described as natural selection.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Matt Silberstein
<duckg...@cox.net> in <sbmqa5dtlf5uluejt...@4ax.com>
wrote:
By whom? If you mean creationist, probably. Not by biologists.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Cory Albrecht
> Please show an observation of "Speciation" that shows the version
> of evolution you believe in. For example, populations of [fruit
> flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
> longer [fruit flies] at all. You can replace [fruit flies] with
> any animal you wish in that sentence. That version of evolution
> has never been observed and is not testable/verifiable - one can
> only believe in it. Please cite a scientific paper that shows
> this version of Speciation to back up your belief. The fact is,
> such a thing has never happened and Speciation has never shown
> any such thing.
Tell me, Gabriel, will you *ever* give an example set of minimal changes
that would have to happen fo you to agree that the descendants of [fruit
flies] are something you would agree are no longer [fruit flies]?
Or how do we tell one Biblical kind from another?
Bob LeChevalier
Not by anyone who knows what they are talking about. Natural
selection is a significant and necessary mechanism in the Theory of
Evolution. But it is only one part.
duke
God created, then let evolution kick in. Just ask a biologist about evolution.
duke
Sorry, but natural selection occurs after evolution. Only the fittest survive.
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9p2va5lit7q9vo8ne...@4ax.com...
VoiceOfReason
Er, you're as wrong as you can get. Natural Selection is one of the
mechanisms that drive evolution. To understand what evolution is and
what it isn't, it would help to read up on it:
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
backspace
> >Other than noting the organism survived how did Spencer measure its
> >fitness?
Which depends what you define as the theory of evolution. Darwin used
the phrase "theory of evolution" only twice in his book. Are you
referring to this:
=== The word couplet theory of evolution as used by Darwin ===
This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is
avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation
of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any
favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which
varied in an opposite manner. That many species have been evolved in
an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt.
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
theory of evolution through natural selection.
The wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics tells us that no
sentence like "theory of evolution" has a single true meaning. What is
the concept you are referring to with this phrase.
> Darwin explained in his book what he meant by "natural selection". The
> choice of phrase is unimportant. Darwin's reference to Spencer's
> phrase was not in the original publication, but was added in the 5th
> edition in 1869, so it could not have been important to the exposition
> of the theory, which was already well-known before that edition.
Again you must quote Darwin if he is your subject matter: He only
defined what he meant by NS once:
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection....."
My question is how did Darwin manage to figure out that something
which is useful would be preserved and something which was preserved
was useful? See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for the
answer.
> As for this silly tautology argument, Wikipedia addresses it
> adequately:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
> <However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own
> < and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism
> < of natural selection.
Depends who says SoF , are you referring to Spencer, because Darwin
was referring to Spencer.
> The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of
> heritability.
Which is your concept , not the concept by Spencer. If you have
another theory then don't call your theory the same label as Darwin.
> It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival
> and reproduction.
Motivate by referring to Spencer, if not Spencer who then? No sentence
has any meaning withouthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics is the issue not the semantics
Spencer and Darwin used.
> However, natural selection is not just survival of the fittest. Natural selection is the portion of variation in
> reproductive success .....
Darwin never said RS, where did you get this term?
> <If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of
> < survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows
> < mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters
> < that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency
> < over generations.
Which guarantees the truth of the proposition.
> This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection.
Who calls is evolution by NS? What would be the concept this
individual has with NS.
> < meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if
> natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce";
Who has stated what? Reference your sources, quote the relevant
passages but don't concoct your own theories and then try and and
imply that it was Darwin's theory.
> rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore
> propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival
> and reproductive success".
Darwin never said RS - who has stated what and when?
> This statement is not tautological
Depends who made the statement. Is Beer-is-beer a tautological
expression or proposition?
> <Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Dr. Michael
> < Shermer addresses this argument in his 1997 book, Why People Believe
> < Weird Things, in which he points out that although tautologies are
> < sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and that
> < scientific principles like natural selection are testable and
> < falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power.
If only Shermer would define the concept he has in mind with NS. Is he
referring to this concept and if not why not:?
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection....."
> < Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same
> < geological strata as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural
> < selection.[12]
Which again depends on what Shermer defines as a natural selection.
backspace
> : Evolution: A change in allele frequencies within a population over
> : time.
> : So yes, natural selection is an example of evolution in action.
> No, natural selection is an example of dogs adapting and evolving
> but remaining dogs.
Cite and reference your sources for this are you referring to Darwin?
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more
accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. ...."
What DArwin wrote here can in principle not be tested.
> In the entire recorded history of the human
> race, natural selection has never lead to dogs evolving over
> generations into animals that are no longer dogs
Which depends what you define as a natural selection. Would you please
define it?
Bob LeChevalier
>>Not by anyone who knows what they are talking about. Natural
>>selection is a significant and necessary mechanism in the Theory of
>>Evolution. But it is only one part.
>
>Sorry, but natural selection occurs after evolution.
No, it is part of evolution.
>Only the fittest survive.
Actually not. Only in cases where there is competition in an
ecological niche, THEN those most fit FOR THAT NICHE will be MORE
LIKELY to survive (but of course accidents can happen even to the most
fit). "Survival of the fittest" is a cute soundbite, but greatly
oversimplifies things, as should be obvious given that such genetic
diseases as cystic fibrosis and Duchennes muscular dystrophy ant
hemophilia continue to exist.