"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

For example, in a sequence showing how the eye might have evolved isn't it just assumed that natural selection is causing it to happen?

No.

Natural selection, in case nobody ever defined it for you, is the non-random process by which a particular trait or feature becomes more widespread within a population as a result of either a survival or attractiveness advantage conferred by it on its possessor or conversely, by which a particular trait becomes less widespread as a result of a disadvantage it confers on its possessor.

Basically, if through a random mutation, a creature gains an advantage, like say a mutation in a gene which controls muscle mass, then an animal like say a cheetah or a leopard will be able to run faster and take down larger prey. This cheetah then gains an advantage in terms of survival because he is more capable of feeding himself. Therefore he lives longer and leaves more descendants, who in turn have this mutated gene. As those descendants grow up, they too (even if the effect remains static) will live longer and leave more descendants and thus the trait is propagated throughout the population. This is natural selection at work.

Similarly with sexual selection, let's take the example of the peacock. Since mate choice in peacocks rests with the female as it does in humans, it is encumbent on the males to make displays in order to win mates. The female preference in peacocks is for big, elaborate tails. One of the reasons for this is that if a male is able to create a flawless tail while maintaining general health then he must be of sufficient genetic integrity to make a good mate. Therefore, he will attract more females and leave more offspring and thus his genes and any mutation which exaggerated his tail will be spread throughout the population.


So in short, any mutation which confers a beneficial effect on its possessor in terms of survival or fecundity is likely to be spread throughout the population.

What does this mean for the eye?

In my post on a mechanism for the eye, I detailed a stepwise mechanism of gradual changes where each stage confers a benefit on the creature, supported by examples of extant creatures with eyes at each step and other general research as well. So, no we are not just assuming natural selection to be the mechanism of evolution, we can demonstrate it.

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What does this mean for the eye?

In my post on a mechanism for the eye, I detailed a stepwise mechanism of gradual changes where each stage confers a benefit on the creature, supported by examples of extant creatures with eyes at each step and other general research as well. So, no we are not just assuming natural selection to be the mechanism of evolution, we can demonstrate it.

Because of your preconceived ideas you believe it's a demonstation but it's actually an assumption.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Because of your preconceived ideas you believe it's a demonstation but it's actually an assumption.

You should be banned for skimming past posts and not offering the courtesy of an equally detailed response. Like all Creationists, you lack the ability to have an honest or intellectual conversation.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

Because of your preconceived ideas you believe it's a demonstation but it's actually an assumption.

I don't have any preconceived ideas about evolution. I am not a biologist. I didn't even do biology in school. Through the last decade I have read everything I could get my hands on on evolution. Pop sci, textbooks, papers, academic books, the works. I didn't assume evolution true when I began because if I'm honest I had no idea how evolution actually worked. But I do now. I know because I have seen the evidence for it. Mountains of it. Genetics, palaeontology, cladistics, molecular biology, physiology, all the evidence that we've managed to uncover and test has added weight to natural selection.

You on the other hand have done nothing in this thread but highlight your ignorance of what evolution actually is. The worse part is not that you're ignorant of it though, it's that you're proud of being ignorant of it. You seem to think that somehow when you come out with these glib little one liners that you look intelligent or clever. You don't. The only thing you add to this debate is an increase in the post count.

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on the supporters of natural selection to show that it is the correct explanation for evolution.

You all credit natural selection with amazing creative powers. As far I can see, natural selelection as an explanation for evolution is no more than an assumption. From the little that natural selection has been demonstrated to do, massive unfounded extrapolations have been made.

So, how do you show that the supposedly incredible creative power of natural selection is a fact and not just an assumption? How can it be tested and proven that natural selection, and not some other mechanism, is the driving force of evolution?

For example, in a sequence showing how the eye might have evolved isn't it just assumed that natural selection is causing it to happen?

How old do you think the earth is?

Doc_Savage

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't have any preconceived ideas about evolution. I am not a biologist. I didn't even do biology in school. ..................... The only thing you add to this debate is an increase in the post count.

another great post mate....

he doesn't seem to accept that evolution did happen and it can be proven by looking at the genetic and fossil evidence. Natural selection is just the mechanism that is best at explaining how it happened, and it's a simple, elegant and logical mechanism. If he can't see that then i think the discussion could be a waste of time. His and ours...

if he wants to substitute the darwinian model with "intelligence?" then the burden of proof firmly lies with him!

mickrock

Doc_Savage wrote: »

he doesn't seem to accept that evolution did happen and it can be proven by looking at the genetic and fossil evidence. Natural selection is just the mechanism that is best at explaining how it happened, and it's a simple, elegant and logical mechanism. If he can't see that then i think the discussion could be a waste of time. His and ours...

I do accept that evolution happened.

I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

Doc_Savage

mickrock wrote: »

It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

well that's a problem, if you think that no answer is better than a bad answer then it is impossible to make progress in any theory, in maths we have things that are called approximations(eg. newton raphson(sp?)), they're all wrong answers but give answers much better than nothing....

you've already asserted "intelligence"... now provide a basis for that assertion please.

(rejection of another theory is not a valid basis for assertion)

oh and sorry for stating you don't accept evolution happened.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Because of your preconceived ideas you believe it's a demonstation but it's actually an assumption.

That's a bit rich coming from somebody who seems to have nothing to add to this conversation but preconceived sound-bites.

Anyhow, as dlofnep implies above, you are not engaging in honest debate. Most other posters, oldrnwisr in particular, are taking considerable time and energy to provide you with detailed responses to your questions. You don't appear to have the common courtesy to reply in kind and instead, just produce one of a a very small number of stock replies. In this forum, that amounts to taking the piss.

If you don't start debating honestly, you will be carded, then banned.

Attabear

mickrock wrote: »

I do accept that evolution happened.

I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

Oh the irony!

Barr125

Sarky wrote: »

How do viruses fit in, do you know? Some of them mutate really rapidly to the point where "species" becomes an awfully fuzzy term for them.

Well viruses are a tricky little section, they're difficult to class is a) as you said, they mutate incredibly quickly and b) there is still the debate as whether to even class viruses under the living or non-living umbrella (having certain life characteristics, such as subjection to natural selection while lacking other key ones like lacking a cell membrane).

But they do have a species classification, there are, in fact, 4 forms: The ICTV classification, the Baltimore system, the Holmes system and the LHT System of Virus Classification. The others are quite complex in their classing so I'll just mention the most basic, which is the Holmes classing system where there are 3 main groupings:
Group I attack bacteria (are known as Phaginae)
Group II attack plants ( are known as Phytophaginae)
Group III attacks animals (known as Zoophaginae)

In the Baltimore system, the viruses are split into 7 groups, which are in turn split into 3 larger groups: DNA viruses (Groups I and II), RNA viruses (Groups III, IV and V) and Reverse Transcribing viruses (Groups VI and VII).

Combining the facts that natural selection applies to viruses and that there aren't a lot of actual characteristics to actually change, besides their DNA/RNA , viruses structurally and in terms who they infect, remain the same.

Dades

mickrock wrote: »

I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact.

In order to make this statement you have to willfully ignore the fact that there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution. You're like a man standing in front of an elephant with his eyes clenched tightly shut shouting how there are no such things as elephants.

That said, one of the reasons this thread exists is for the purpose of displaying this type of behavior. You are a museum piece to be viewed by people who marvel at how obtuse the human mind can be when it comes to clinging to preferred misconceptions.

Go you!

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, as dlofnep implies above, you are not engaging in honest debate. Most other posters, oldrnwisr in particular, are taking considerable time and energy to provide you with detailed responses to your questions. You don't appear to have the common courtesy to reply in kind and instead, just produce one of a a very small number of stock replies. In this forum, that amounts to taking the piss.

Oldrnwisr gave a description of how natural selection works, all of which I agree with, which is why I didn't reply to that part.

I don't agree that the small scale adaptations that natural selection can explain can be extended to explain large scale evolution. The evidence isn't there.

mickrock

Dades wrote: »

In order to make this statement you have to willfully ignore the fact that there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Is there mountains of evidence that natural selection is the cause?

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

Oldrnwisr gave a description of how natural selection works, all of which I agree with, which is why I didn't reply to that part.

I don't agree that the small scale adaptations that natural selection can explain can be extended to explain large scale evolution. The evidence isn't there.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

The evidence isn't there.

The evidence is there. In spades.

If you have a problem with accepting that, then you have to explain why you have a problem. It's not sufficient just to keep repeating "It doesn't work".

Barr125

mickrock wrote: »

I do accept that evolution happened.

I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

You keep harping on and on about about natural selection is ''unproven'' and just blindly accepted but yet you have said evolution does happen and you haven't postulated the Intelligent Design nonsense (yet).

So do you subscribe to any of the other explanations behind evolution? Neo-Lamarckism, the idea that an organism inherits the characteristics developed through its life? What about Orthogenesis, the belief that organisms are affected by internal forces or laws of development that drive evolution in particular directions? Or saltationism where evolution is the product of large mutations that create new species in a single step? Those are the main 4 alternatives that come anywhere near Natural Selection (they've largely been discarded since the development of genetics in the 1920s-1930s).

So which is it mickrock? Or are you going to continually ignore every request to provide your alternative? If the other posters here knew what your idea behind evolution is, what linear, structured driving force you consider to be the mechanism of evolution to be, then perhaps we can get a dialogue going.

Until then, you're just pulling the classic routine of standing in the middle of the crowd, fingers in your ears, screaming 'LALALA, no evidence of Natural Selection, LALALA''.

mickrock

Barr125 wrote: »

You keep harping on and on about about natural selection is ''unproven'' and just blindly accepted but yet you have said evolution does happen and you haven't postulated the Intelligent Design nonsense (yet).

You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

Sycopat

my crock wrote: »

You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

Many examples of observations illustrating natural selection have been given to you.

Elaborate on why they are wrong.

And don't bother getting another video to make the same claims you are as if that backs you up. It doesn't. It's just reiteration.

Unlike many here I'm not convinced you're a fool. I think your purposefully engaging in an argument ad nauseam.

Barr125

mickrock wrote: »

You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer". Am I right in saying that?

And how do I clearly believe it has been proven? I never said one way or the other. All I said was that YOU believe it is unproven and asked for your best explanation as to how evolution occurs. I even provided some of the most prime examples for you to argue other posters with.

(In the words of Achemd, "I can do this crap too!" :pac: )

kiffer

What is mickrock's position here?
I'm only lurking periodically so it looks a bit odd...

So evolution happens but selection by natural means does not?
It seems like a really odd thing to pick...
I mean clearly some animals survive better than others, breed more and so come to take up a larger wedge of the population pie chart...
And we know that creatures pass on characteristics to their offspring...
I'm having trouble with which part of the whole thing mickrock is disputing?

Mutations cause variation?
Variations in genes?
Genes effecting survival?
Survival effecting reproduction?
Speciation?

What does he think is going on?
Could someone fill me in with some cliff notes?

The Mad Hatter

As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.

mickrock

Sycopat wrote: »

Many examples of observations illustrating natural selection have been given to you.

Elaborate on why they are wrong.

The examples given only show adaptations that don't lead to any increased complexity.

Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity by adding novel functions, organs or systems. People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.

mickrock

Barr125 wrote: »

All I said was that YOU believe it is unproven and asked for your best explanation as to how evolution occurs. I even provided some of the most prime examples for you to argue other posters with.

Why do lots of you want to discuss alternative mechanisms to Darwinism?

If Darwinism is so robust you should easily be able to defend it.

Barr125

mickrock wrote: »

The examples given only show adaptations that don't lead to any increased complexity.

Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity by adding novel functions, organs or systems. People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.

I honestly don't believe you're real. I think you're a Poe spouting off articles from some creationist dictionary website. No one can be this ignorant and off-handed.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

Why do lots of you want to discuss alternative mechanisms to Darwinism?

If Darwinism is so robust you should easily be able to defend it.

At this point I'm thinking that you're just trolling.

Many people have attempted to start a dialogue with you in order to do so, which you've ignored.

At this point I'm going to fight fire with fire.
Any further posts you make will be responded to with the following:

"Darwinism is a valid theory for evolution, you're an idiot."

swampgas

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.

I've met a few evolution deniers who seem to have a real problem comprehending the time-scales involved. It's almost like they think a monkey today is a man tomorrow.

I can sort of see why evolution might seem far-fetched, if you don't understand these time-scales. It's a bit like looking at the Grand Canyon, and refusing to believe that simple natural processes of erosion by wind and water created it, because you can't get a handle on just how long it took those processes to produce what we see today.

Sycopat

my crock wrote: »

Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity

Explain what you mean by 'increased complexity'. As we seem to have different understandings. If what you have can be classified as an understanding.

(The fun thing about evolution by natural selection is it doesn't just account for advantages arising from increased complexity, but also explains how decreasing complexity can be advantageous....)

novel functions,

You are wrong. Richard Lenski's bacteria experiments showed this.

organs

You are wrong. Oldrnwisrs post on eye development contains both a good stepwise demonstration on this and plenty of links.

systems.

'systems' is a meaninglessly unspecific term.

People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.

Well it is an advantage for scientists to be able to find explanations for what they observe. You must live in a very boring world if you think a lack of imagination is a virtue.

kiffer

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.

I find it really odd... the whole onesided style. I see that a lot, a refusal to present any evidence or even awknowledge evidence presented to them, discarding examples with out giving any justifications... I can't make sense of the behaviour.

Ziphius

kiffer wrote: »

I find it really odd... the whole onesided style. I see that a lot, a refusal to present any evidence or even awknowledge evidence presented to them, discarding examples with out giving any justifications... I can't make sense of the behaviour.

It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.