evolution&dogs, book 2

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

Being cocky and abrasive while being utterly wrong makes you look really pathetic. Especially when you contradict yourself within the same thread. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

RedAndy

Teapot agnostic
Dec 18, 2006
738
46
✟8,663.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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?
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟14,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
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

You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about do you? :D

Full marks for chutzpah
 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟19,007.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

I can say I expected this answer.

Key, are you getting that NO ONE is buying that you know anything about evolution

About the Theory of Evolution, or the Definition?

Being cocky and abrasive while being utterly wrong makes you look really pathetic. Especially when you contradict yourself within the same thread. :sigh:

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.

I'll let you know, it does not.

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.

I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science.

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,

Fair enough, It seems we agree here.

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?

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.

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.

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 am sure you will have a rebuttal to this, and I would like so very much to see it. In a way, I want to see if it is more then smoke and mirrors.

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.

Pity, that is so well supported, because we have discovered that there are a great many limitations to it. Given it was via artificial selection, but it is still a good study.

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?

I have no idea what you will and will not do, I can make a prediction, based on what you have done in the past, but that does not mean I know what you are going to do.

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.

Now it would be great if we all could make up our dentitions for things, wouldn't it, then we could throw out dictionaries, and make words mean what ever we wanted them to, to suit our own needs and agenda.

Now, maybe you don't like that Definition. It does not suit your needs.

Maybe you would like a few of these:

Oxford:

noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection
Merriam-Websters:

the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)
: [SIZE=-1]PHYLOGENY[/SIZE] b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Or will you just be tossing around your own as it suits you.

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?

You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about do you? :D

Full marks for chutzpah

Maybe I do, maybe I don't.

Eh.. :scratch:

God Bless

Key
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
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? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Bah.. 7 pages of banging my head on wall.. I'm done...

Been great...

God Bless

Key
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. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
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


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.
 
Upvote 0

RedAndy

Teapot agnostic
Dec 18, 2006
738
46
✟8,663.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science.
There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a link. No, have two.

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.
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).

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.
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.

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.
The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.

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.
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.

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?
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.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Dog breeds ARE separate species by strict biological definitions.
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.

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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

Pesto

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2006
957
27
✟16,297.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
We do. The nautilus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

Great Danes and Chihuahuas are unable to mate (without extreme measures taken by humans) which makes them separate species by definition. Due to intermediate sized dogs which can allow genetic flow between Chihuahuas and Great Danes it is better to classify dogs as a rings species of sorts, or better defined as speciation in progress.

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.

About 1 in 10,000 jennies (female mule) produce a foal. This is too few to have a viable population. Horses and mules are effectively separate species.
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
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.
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 reproduction

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 offspring of certain dog species are so consumed with genetic defects as to be impossible to breed the species without human intervention.
 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟19,007.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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. :sigh:

I am still waiting to be impressed.

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]

Are you talking about THIS?

Now, see, there are not "steps" in case you missed this, these are Punctured Equilibrium jumps, which might be an issue for you, depending on what "Theory" you cling to when you seek to discuss Evolution, are you in the Gradual group, the Catastrophic, there are many "Theories" and many different views on evolution, sadly, many of them are incompatible, such a Pity that.

Tell you what, when you learn what you are discussing, and when you can tell me, which method you subscribe to, then we can talk.

Right now, all I see is people saying "You don't understand evolution" and getting incorrect definitions, and on top of that, I see people spouting incompatible methodology.

So tell me, what insight do you possess, what hidden knowledge do you gain as a "believer" in evolution that I do not have open to me? Is this a little private cult of yours, maybe, Hummmm?

See this is really when you come off as having no grasp of what you are talking about, because see, if it is Scientific, then it is open to everyone, it is not a "private" thing. Unless your trying to make it into one. If that is case, I hope you do enjoy your new religion.

There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a link. No, have two.

Read that.. and That... and as far as I see for this "Evidence" it is nothing more then Adaptation, and a lot of speculation.

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).

I have read them, in case you did not know, after all, unlike many people here, I have studied this bunk.

But that is not the issue, I guess you can cling to what ever you want. So tell me, what method of evolution do you cling to?

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.

The eye is fully functional, IE: it is not a progression of nor is it mid step in it's design, it is functional as an eye.

For example, a Near-sighted person has a fully functional eye, it may not be perfect, but it functions fully. It does not function "Half Way".

Progression would place the development of this as a "gradual" method, where the eye, would be in mid process to becoming a functional aspect of the life forms. We do not have that, we have functional, and non-functional.

Maybe the problem is your failing to grasp the process of "gradual" as opposed to what you have been told the answer is.

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.

Ahh joy an argument by outrage, how lovely. And completely missing my point.

Did I expect any less... not really...

The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.

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.

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.

That is why it is a definition and not the Theory as a Whole.

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.

All I can say, is that the more you study, and the more you look at all the sources, the more things become clear.

If you want evolutuon to be true, you will only look at what you want to see to support yoru beliefs.

I challenge you to look at the other side objectively.

I really don't think you can.

We do. The nautilus.

The Nautilus has fully functional eyes, so, I do not see your point.

Are you thinking that there was a requirement for a Lens?

Have you never looked at an insects eyes? Notice that the eye is compound, and right after the lens is a crystalline cone, not some ball of jelly like a mammal eye. Did you really think it was the components that I was talking about?

Maybe even a lobsters eyes, notice how it has a completely different make up from our own eyes, the lens functions in a different manner, and even it's composition of the lens being around the eye, as opposed to being in the eye, I mean, really, you will have to do better then this in the future.

The Lack of a Lens would not make the eye "Half Functional" anymore then the fact that humans only have a limited lens would make our eye less functional, or the fact that an insect has a crystalline cone and a human does not, would make a difference.

Please, do you all not grasp the concept of gradual evolution?

Anyway, it has been fun.

Let me know when you have something good to put on the table, something beyond the PAX6 just came to be, and lo and behold, there was sight.

God Bless

Key
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟14,982.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
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.

:D

Priceless

Keep it up, it's comedy gold.

Half functional skin :)
 
Upvote 0