Qs on evolution (split from scientific "community")

[B. John Jones]

If natural selection is defined in its essence as:

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Then it is fact.

I think that Darwin's "natural selection" far exceeded this, and is to be negated.

Edited June 5, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Arete]

 

If natural selection is defined in its essence as:

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring

Then it is fact.

I think that Darwin's "natural selection" far exceeded this, and is to be negated.

 

 

 

Your first statement is correct, and your second is incorrect.

 

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Edited June 5, 2016 by Arete

[B. John Jones]

 

Ignoring the fallacious goalpost shift for a minute - the Framingham heart study demonstrates that natural selection is acting on a human population to, among other things, lower systolic blood pressure and delay the onset of menopuase. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.short

 

I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking.

[Arete]

 

I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking.

 

Learning is harder than making stuff up, (the Stearns paper is actually a relatively easy read, if you are scientifically literate)

[B. John Jones]

 

 

Your first statement is correct, and your second is incorrect.

 

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 

Did Darwin claim that every species evolved from other (not their own) species, through natural selection?

[Arete]

 

Did Darwin claim that every species evolved from other (not their own) species, through natural selection?

Unsure how this is relevant - it has also been demonstrated that neutral processes like genetic drift are also powerful evolutionary forces, particularly in small populations.

[B. John Jones]

Unsure how this is relevant - it has also been demonstrated that neutral processes like genetic drift are also powerful evolutionary forces, particularly in small populations.

 

We're contrasting the definition of natural selection as being that which we've agreed it is in its essence; or the definition which far exceeded it, that having its origin with Darwin, if in case Darwin claimed that species have evolved from species other than their own (through natural selection).

Edited June 5, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

We're contrasting the definition of natural selection as being that which we've agreed it is in its essence; or the definition which far exceeded it, that having its origin with Darwin, if in case Darwin claimed that species have evolved from species other than their own (through natural selection).

I thought the thread was about the scientific community?

[Arete]

 

We're contrasting the definition of natural selection as being that which we've agreed it is in its essence; or the definition which far exceeded it, that having its origin with Darwin, if in case Darwin claimed that species have evolved from species other than their own (through natural selection).

 

I have previously cited observed speciation via natural selection.It does not exclude speciation via neutral evolutionary processes. Are you claiming something else? If so where's the evidence?

[B. John Jones]

 

I have previously cited observed speciation via natural selection.It does not exclude speciation via neutral evolutionary processes. Are you claiming something else? If so where's the evidence?

 

I'm claiming that species never evolve from unequal species, except, perhaps at the microbial level (if microbes are considered species).

[ajb]

Should this be split off into another thread? It seems off topic to me.

[swansont]

Should this be split off into another thread? It seems off topic to me.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Yes (split from scientific "community" thread)

Lets try and stay on-topic here. Evolution. Nothing else.

 

[John Cuthber]

Humanity- through its own vanity has bred lots of different types of dogs.

Imagine that, by some misfortune almost all of them were killed- perhaps some virulent disease or, given human stupidity- perhaps more likely- a government decree).

Imagine that the only ones left were a bunch of Chihuahuas and a bunch of great Danes.

 

Without help, those two groups can't interbreed. (Jokes about stepladders notwithstanding)

 

And the definition of species (in most cases) involves groups that can't interbreed (and produce viable offspring).

Well, even without the loss of all the other sizes of dogs in between, we still have two groups that can't interbreed.

So, mankind has already brought about the creation of two separate species.

 

Yet BJ Jones says it's impossible.

 

To me , the only conclusion is that he's just not paying attention to the facts.

Worse than that (in the context of a scientific site) he refuses to study the facts. Instead he says things like "I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking."

 

Well, I asked it before, and I'm asking again:

Mr Jones: why are you even here?

You refuse to learn and you are not permitted to preach.

You won't debate.

Why have you not left yet?

[Arete]

 

I'm claiming that species never evolve from unequal species, except, perhaps at the microbial level (if microbes are considered species).

 

Your initial claim was that natural selection did not exist.

 

Are you now changing that claim to Something along the lines of "Species (with slow generation times, as you've excluded microbes) only evolve into like species - e.g. a fly into another fly and not an elephant."? That would be a classic strawman of evolutionary theory - evolutionary theory never predicted that a single speciation event would result in a drastically different organisms.

 

If a population of fruit flies woke up one day and discovered that they'd suddenly become elephants it would thoroughly contradict our current understanding of evolution. As such, criticising evolution for not observing something it never predicted isn't really a valid criticism.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Arete

[swansont]

 

Well, I asked it before, and I'm asking again:

Mr Jones: why are you even here?

You refuse to learn and you are not permitted to preach.

You won't debate.

Why have you not left yet?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

We're here to discuss evolution. Nothing else.

[Daecon]

Why all this emphasis on "Darwin"? Darwin didn't even know about DNA. He made an observation about the real world, and came up with a possible explanation to describe how what he was observing, happened.

[Phi for All]

Why all this emphasis on "Darwin"? Darwin didn't even know about DNA. He made an observation about the real world, and came up with a possible explanation to describe how what he was observing, happened.

 

As an early contributor to what is now a much more deeply understood process, Darwin is an easier target for creationists. They usually pretend that Darwin's work is the state of the art so they can criticize the current theory. It's fallacious logic, but I'm not sure the fallacy has a name. It's almost a genetic fallacy, where the theory of evolution is suspect because Darwin didn't know everything we know today.

[Prometheus]

 

As an early contributor to what is now a much more deeply understood process, Darwin is an easier target for creationists. They usually pretend that Darwin's work is the state of the art so they can criticize the current theory. It's fallacious logic, but I'm not sure the fallacy has a name. It's almost a genetic fallacy, where the theory of evolution is suspect because Darwin didn't know everything we know today.

 

Maybe they imagine Darwin is to scientists what a prophet is to theists: a messenger revealing truth unto an ignorant world. As such they can not imagine how the ideas of Darwin could be amended or challenged by professed scientists: his words must be immutable. Either that or it's a deliberate ploy to avoid the real issues.

[Strange]

I suspect it may also be because religious people like to claim (and maybe believe) that people only accept the theory of evolution "because Darwin said". That they think they can criticise the theory because it is based on faith is oddly ironic.

 

I'm sure a lot of them just don't get the concept that science is based on evidence rather than the words of a Darwin or an Einstein.

[uncool]

Did Darwin claim that every species evolved from other (not their own) species, through natural selection?

If you are asking whether Charles Darwin proposed the theory of common descent, then the answer is yes (although he was not the first). Relevant quote from On the Origin of Species

 

It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we may consider, by so much the arguments fall away in force. But some arguments of the greatest weight extend very far. All the members of whole classes can be connected together by chains of affinities, and all can be classified on the same principle, in groups subordinate to groups. Fossil remains sometimes tend to fill up very wide intervals between existing orders. Organs in a rudimentary condition plainly show that an early progenitor had the organ in a fully developed state; and this in some instances necessarily implies an enormous amount of modification in the descendants. Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modificationembraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

 

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. ↑ Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

Edited June 6, 2016 by uncool

[Strange]

If you are asking whether Charles Darwin proposed the theory of common descent, then the answer is yes (although he was not the first).

 

 

Key point: the fact of evolution has been known about for millennia -- ever since people domesticated plants and animals.

 

There have been theories about how it works for just as long. Most of these don't really work (e.g. Lamark). But Wallace and Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, based on existing ideas and their own observations. Experiments and observations have largely confirmed the basic idea, but various extensions and changes have been made ('cos that's how science works).

 

We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

[B. John Jones]

Humanity- through its own vanity has bred lots of different types of dogs.

Imagine that, by some misfortune almost all of them were killed- perhaps some virulent disease or, given human stupidity- perhaps more likely- a government decree).

Imagine that the only ones left were a bunch of Chihuahuas and a bunch of great Danes.

 

Without help, those two groups can't interbreed. (Jokes about stepladders notwithstanding)

 

And the definition of species (in most cases) involves groups that can't interbreed (and produce viable offspring).

Well, even without the loss of all the other sizes of dogs in between, we still have two groups that can't interbreed.

So, mankind has already brought about the creation of two separate species.

 

Yet BJ Jones says it's impossible.

 

To me , the only conclusion is that he's just not paying attention to the facts.

Worse than that (in the context of a scientific site) he refuses to study the facts. Instead he says things like "I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking."

 

Well, I asked it before, and I'm asking again:

Mr Jones: why are you even here?

You refuse to learn and you are not permitted to preach.

You won't debate.

Why have you not left yet?

 

You must be very smart since you even know that I refuse to learn, which I didn't even know! Which causes me to ponder why I am even here? Go figure.

 

Fundamentally, a species is as precise as the taxonomy of creatures gets. You guys call humans "homo-sapiens." Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. These might be compared (by folks who judge merely on a scientific basis) to your chihuahuas and great danes. But remember, the races and nationalities are not by technology but by nature (if judged by a scientific basis), whereas the various "breeds" of creatures are by human technology. Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption.

[Strange]

Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption.

 

Nope. We observe evolution in the real world. Evolution is a fact.

 

And science produces (and tests) theories to explain that fact.

 

You must be very smart since you even know that I refuse to learn, which I didn't even know!

 

You have been told that before (and been given examples) so the evidence is pretty clear that you are unwilling to learn.

[B. John Jones]

 

Nope. We observe evolution in the real world. Evolution is a fact.

 

If this is true, then someone here should be able to give me science's best "example" of evolution occurring in nature, or at least a stellar one. I have plenty of examples of stellar created beings reproducing their own kinds. Give me one pristine example of evolution by natural selection. Please don't tell me about a colony of birds' beaks changing structure or a chameleon changing his color. Time is of the essence.

Edited June 8, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

Please don't tell me about a colony of birds' beaks changing structure

 

Those seem like reasonable examples of evolution by natural selection. Why do you reject them?

 

 

I have plenty of examples of stellar created beings reproducing their own kinds.

 

Of course organisms reproduce their own "kinds". What do you expect? A fish to give birth to a lion?

 

But if by "kind" you mean species, then perhaps you are looking for cases where we have seen new species arise? You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

(Don't worry, if you go through all of those and reject them one by one for various reasons, there are plenty more to keep you busy.)

Edited June 8, 2016 by Strange