Thanks, but I don't need any information about evolution from you -- I know quite a bit more about it than you do. Condescension is a bad strategy when you know less about a subject than the people you're talking to.Now that is just funny!
Inaccurate, incorrect, and really sad, to tell the truth but, hey, I guess you need to cling to what you need to cling to. Maybe you should read the link I provided, it might teach you something, and let me know if you need more links or such, to help you understand this, after all, I do not expect you to take the word of a Creationist or IDist, about a scientific theory, I know it's your own little pet belief, and because of that, there might be the feeling that unless you follow the belief you just won't grasp it.
But let me know if you need more info.
Key said:Dogs are not Evolution, but simple Genetic Drift
Wiki said:Genetic Drift said:In population genetics, genetic drift is the statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the survival of alleles (variants of a gene).
Loudmouth said:Dogs are under extreme selection, not genetic drift.
Key said:No, the nature of the selection is a very different kind.
Key said:We are in reality discussing a directed and very active selective force being placed upon these animals.
You are correct, because you didn't ask me to talk about the theory of evolution. You asked me to define what evolution is, which I did. The theory of evolution explains how these changes in allele frequencies take place, and with that come the inferences of common descent that many theists (including, I presume, yourself) seem so unhappy with.See to me, The Theory of Evolution is was supposed to be in theory the best explanation of the Diversity of Life on this plant and how it came to be. That is not what you are providing however, which is a good thing to tell the truth. I'll explain this.
Common descent is an inference from the theory of evolution, which postulates mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer and so on as an explanation for how evolution works and how it has affected the history of the planet. You are correct that the existence of evolution as a biological phenomenon has no bearing on whether or not common descent is an accurate inference to make, or even whether the theory of evolution is correct, but those ideas are well supported by evidence - which Creationism and ID categorically do not have.You see, If that is your definition of Evolution, then it can fit into the Creationist (or ID) theory with out any problems, because of its vastly limited and microscopic focus, and holds no bearing on if Creationism, or ID may or may not be wrong, it equally so, holds no bearing on if common decent, or single ancestor is valid in any shape or form.
Bearing in mind that evolution (as in "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time") has been observed, how exactly do Creationism or ID explain this? The theory of evolution is the best explanation of evolution, as it is supported by mountains of evidence. Creationism and ID are entirely unsupported, and technically speaking aren't even explanations of anything.So, given that, we have nothing to discuss, by your own admission, you can not by this limited view even start to say if Creationism may or may not be wrong and better yet, by clinging to this limited scope, you are in effect saying that it is most likely correct. After all, if this is all that Evolution is to you, it fits into all Theories, and none more so then ID and Creationism.
Yes, it is all I view evolution as. However, I do not believe - as Creationists tend to - that there is no way in which cumulative "changes in allele frequencies in a population" can account for the diversity of life on earth. I consider the common descent hypothesis to be extremely well-supported, and that makes me anything but a Creationist.Now why is that?
Because Creationism allows for that very same scenario, and even supports it, in many cases, Creationism supports that what you have defined as Evolution, is all that Evolution really is.
If that is the Case, and this is the ALL that you view Evolution as, then Welcome to the ID, or Creationism fold RedAndy.
What you have demonstrated overwhelmingly is that you do not understand the difference between an observed phenomenon and the theory invoked to explain that phenomenon. I consider evolution to be the change in allele frequencies I have defined, but that does not mean I do not support the theory of evolution, which is something else entirely. I mean, did you really think I was going to let you get away with that?In the end, I guess we really do not have anything to debate about. What you have defined as the ALL of Evolution is completely compatible with my beliefs, and even supports the Theory of Creationism and ID.
Now that is just funny!
Inaccurate, incorrect, and really sad, to tell the truth but, hey, I guess you need to cling to what you need to cling to. Maybe you should read the link I provided, it might teach you something, and let me know if you need more links or such, to help you understand this, after all, I do not expect you to take the word of a Creationist or IDist, about a scientific theory, I know it's your own little pet belief, and because of that, there might be the feeling that unless you follow the belief you just won't grasp it.
But let me know if you need more info.
God Bless
Key
Thanks, but I don't need any information about evolution from you -- I know quite a bit more about it than you do. Condescension is a bad strategy when you know less about a subject than the people you're talking to.
Key, are you getting that NO ONE is buying that you know anything about evolution
Being cocky and abrasive while being utterly wrong makes you look really pathetic. Especially when you contradict yourself within the same thread.
You are correct, because you didn't ask me to talk about the theory of evolution. You asked me to define what evolution is, which I did. The theory of evolution explains how these changes in allele frequencies take place, and with that come the inferences of common descent that many theists (including, I presume, yourself) seem so unhappy with.
Common descent is an inference from the theory of evolution, which postulates mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer and so on as an explanation for how evolution works and how it has affected the history of the planet. You are correct that the existence of evolution as a biological phenomenon has no bearing on whether or not common descent is an accurate inference to make, or even whether the theory of evolution is correct,
Bearing in mind that evolution (as in "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time") has been observed, how exactly do Creationism or ID explain this?
Yes, it is all I view evolution as. However, I do not believe - as Creationists tend to - that there is no way in which cumulative "changes in allele frequencies in a population" can account for the diversity of life on earth.
I consider evolution to be the change in allele frequencies I have defined, but that does not mean I do not support the theory of evolution, which is something else entirely. I mean, did you really think I was going to let you get away with that?
You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about do you?
Full marks for chutzpah
Are you seriously going to try and worm out of this pickle you're in by accusing me of quote mining? If I were quote mined I would have surely included the proper context as evidence. Why wouldn't you? Go ahead, show me the context for how you can get from declaring that the different breeds of dogs are due to "simple genetic drift" to "very active selective force" without contradicting yourself. Or is it that you actually need those terms explained to you?Please explain the contradiction, or is this where you just take one line here and and one line there and place them out of context and think this makes you look smart, or proves a point.
And just think... if you had just stopped long enough to hear what the people with actual knowledge had to say you might have learned something. What a waste.Bah.. 7 pages of banging my head on wall.. I'm done...
Been great...
God Bless
Key
Aaaaaaaand its a rout!Bah.. 7 pages of banging my head on wall.. I'm done...
Been great...
God Bless
Key
Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional
There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a link. No, have two.I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science.
What is the evidence for this "Theory of Creation?" Certain fields like comparative genomics, etc., seem to point far more to the idea that fish, birds, mammals, molluscs, plants, prokaryotes etc. all had a common origin. Frankly I can see no compelling non-Biblical evidence pointing to a Creation event. The empirical evidence suggests common descent - have a look at the first of the links I gave (it's a lot of reading but I'm sure you'll find it interesting).Ok let me explain this to you, in the Theory of Creation, life was created at a base level, what this level is, we are not sure, but, all types of life where created, each with it's own distinct differences. IE: Fish, Birds, Mammals.
How does your claim that the "progression" of the eye is not plausible reconcile with the fact that Darwin, in The Origin of Species, postulated a series of progressive steps in which the eye could evolve - and, furthermore, every single one of these different steps has been found to exist in nature. You cannot claim the false dichotomy that all sighted organisms have either "photosensitive cells" or a "fully formed" (by which I suppose you mean mammalian) eye when there are examples in nature of the very things you suppose do not exist. Some snails, for example, have an eye analogous to a pinhole camera.Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional or, in the case of ID, it may have been cultivated and controlled to the point that the life forms could develop the eye structure with artificial selection in a controlled or even unnatural environment, IE: a Lab.
Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes.
The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.So ID makes the claim that in cases like this, a designer must have intervened, when a half point or a progressive "steps" is not a plausibility.
I thought I'd help you out by highlighting a little part of the definition. This definition does not claim to be the be-all and end-all of evolutionary processes. It doesn't mention lateral gene transfer, either, but we have good evidence that this has been a very significant process during the course of evolution, particularly in the early stages of single-celled life.However, Allow me to enlighten you, Evolution as Defined:
Dictionary.com
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
However, notice, in the definition, Artificial Selection, is not listed.
You claimed that there was a difference between "adaptation" and "evolution," and you had defined "adaptation" in a way that most would consider to be evolution. My motive was to work out precisely what you meant when you referred to evolution.See the problem I had with you, is that you asked me to define a word, this word was "Evolution", now why should I have to do that, when others before me, have taken the time to make entire volumes that have these definitions ready for me at my fingertips.
Help me out with that one, what was your motive?
Wrong. Simply and utterly wrong. Except for problems of size, all dogs can mate and produce offspring - and would do so willingly if given the opportunity. The offspring, in turn, is fertile.Dog breeds ARE separate species by strict biological definitions.
Yet mules are infertile, suggesting that horses and donkeys are no longer the same species - or at least on the verge of drifting apart completely.Its much the same as the relation between donkeys and horses. They are in the same genus and family however they are distinctly different species.
We do. The nautilus.Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional or, in the case of ID, it may have been cultivated and controlled to the point that the life forms could develop the eye structure with artificial selection in a controlled or even unnatural environment, IE: a Lab.
Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes.
Wrong. Simply and utterly wrong. Except for problems of size, all dogs can mate and produce offspring - and would do so willingly if given the opportunity. The offspring, in turn, is fertile.
Yet mules are infertile, suggesting that horses and donkeys are no longer the same species - or at least on the verge of drifting apart completely.
The problem of size is a pretty big problem. A Great Dane will NOT mate with a Chihuahua of its own accord. If you dont believe me, get a male Dane and put it with a female Chihuahua and see what happens and I can guarantee you it wont be reproductionWrong. Simply and utterly wrong. Except for problems of size, all dogs can mate and produce offspring - and would do so willingly if given the opportunity. The offspring, in turn, is fertile.
The offspring of certain dog species are so consumed with genetic defects as to be impossible to breed the species without human intervention.Yet mules are infertile, suggesting that horses and donkeys are no longer the same species - or at least on the verge of drifting apart completely.
And just think... if you had just stopped long enough to hear what the people with actual knowledge had to say you might have learned something. What a waste.
And finally, you show that you do, indeed, not know what you are talking about. Impossibility of the evolution of the eye is the most oft-refuted of the "irreducible complexity" PRATTs. Divide up the major steps of eye evolution (sensitive patch to sensitive pit to simple gelatinous lens to hardened lens to human eye) and each of those stages can be found in nature. So clearly, each step is useful.
[/size][/color][/font]
What is the evidence for this "Theory of Creation?" Certain fields like comparative genomics, etc., seem to point far more to the idea that fish, birds, mammals, molluscs, plants, prokaryotes etc. all had a common origin. Frankly I can see no compelling non-Biblical evidence pointing to a Creation event. The empirical evidence suggests common descent - have a look at the first of the links I gave (it's a lot of reading but I'm sure you'll find it interesting).
How does your claim that the "progression" of the eye is not plausible reconcile with the fact that Darwin, in The Origin of Species, postulated a series of progressive steps in which the eye could evolve - and, furthermore, every single one of these different steps has been found to exist in nature. You cannot claim the false dichotomy that all sighted organisms have either "photosensitive cells" or a "fully formed" (by which I suppose you mean mammalian) eye when there are examples in nature of the very things you suppose do not exist. Some snails, for example, have an eye analogous to a pinhole camera.
I, by the way, am short-sighted. I find it laughable that you suggest that since my eye is not completely perfect, I should simply resign myself to the fact that I might as well be blind. That, in essence, is what you are suggesting - anything less than perfect is impossible.
The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.
I thought I'd help you out by highlighting a little part of the definition. This definition does not claim to be the be-all and end-all of evolutionary processes. It doesn't mention lateral gene transfer, either, but we have good evidence that this has been a very significant process during the course of evolution, particularly in the early stages of single-celled life.
You claimed that there was a difference between "adaptation" and "evolution," and you had defined "adaptation" in a way that most would consider to be evolution. My motive was to work out precisely what you meant when you referred to evolution.
We do. The nautilus.
I
Really? we have "Gradual Bones" and "Gradual" skin, and Gradual Scales, and Gradual Hair, and gradual aspects of all our components. Wow, I never knew that. Seems that all these levels of gradual development must exist, like half functional skin, and partially functional bones, or maybe marrow and no bones, or bones with no marrow, or maybe, you have no idea what you are talking about.