• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

evolution&dogs, book 2

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by billwald, May 7, 2007.

  1. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    I disagree. To be more general, the mechanisms are mutation and selection, which includes all selection.
     
  2. Steezie

    Steezie Guest

    +0
    We dont want to read a link. We want to know that YOU have a working knowleage of Evolution. We know Wikipedia has the definition, but we want to see if YOU can define it in your own words
     
  3. RedAndy

    RedAndy Teapot agnostic

    738
    +40
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    UK-Labour
    Allow me to explain. This is a link.

    Now, you will notice that it is slightly different from a "definition" or "explanation," an example of which I will provide below.

    I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide definitions of both of these phenomena before you can make such claims. Please see the example of a definition below.

    No, just that you will have to define what you are talking about before you talk about it. Like I say, all we have at the moment is Creationist gum-flappery.

    Okay then:

    Biological evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies within a population over a period of time. A population is said to have evolved if the proportion of individuals possessing a particular allele has changed in relation to the proportions of other alleles. As such, evolution can apply to small-scale changes within species (micro-evolution), or large-scale changes between species or higher taxa (macro-evolution).

    Now, please define what you understand by evolution, and we can talk about who is correct.
     
  4. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    Please don't spoonfeed him.
     
  5. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Artificial selection is a mechanism of evolution.
     
  6. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I did, in the link, the link explained that there are diffrences, now, if I need to spell it out for you, then let me try.

    An adaptation is a change either via Acclimation of the individual or though posterity that is most fit to survive.

    Now, Evolution, is just a change in genetic material, which can come about via the affects of fitness of survival or can come about via genetic drift, or mutations that have no affect upon survival. Now in the first case, this is adaptation, but fitness of survival is not necessary evolution, as something can adapt and not evolve, IE their Genetic make up does not change, for example: Dogs with long hair and dogs with short hair, are the same genetic make up, each just suited to it's environment. Neither has in effect evolved. However, adaptations in theory can lead to Evolution.

    Now, in the second example, the affects have no bearing on survival, as such, are not measures of fitness and thus not adaptations, however they can be evolutionary changes.

    Does that explain it for you?

    The links provided explained this.

    Now as for your definition, you have got to be kidding me. That is Evolution in your little world?^_^

    Variations of Allele Frequency? Are you serious? That is your definition?

    Oh no! The Children in my town seem to be have more blues then green eyes this year ! They must be Evolving ! Man that is funny really.... Just to say.. that is really funny.. sounds all technical and stuff... but.. it's funny.. really, and lame to boot, when you really look at it.

    God Bless

    Key.
     
  7. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    If you want to treat those as the three mechanisms of evolution, then artifical selection is a special case of natural selection.
     
  8. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    Do you think that's a good definition of evolution?
     
  9. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Right on the principles, partly wrong on the example. Hair length in dogs is mostly the result of genetics, not environment.

    That's just the technical version of the definition you gave above. Why is it good when you give it and absurd when someone else does? In any case, it's the correct definition in the "little world" of evolutionary biology. You should try visiting it sometime -- it's quite an interresting place.

    You really didn't understand the definition you gave, did you? Yes, if there are more green eyes than blue this year, it probably is evolution in action -- it's that genetic drift you talked about above.
     
  10. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +647
    Agnostic
    Single
    Artificial Selection does not occur in nature, by definition. It is therefore not an example of Natural Selection.
     
  11. RedAndy

    RedAndy Teapot agnostic

    738
    +40
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    UK-Labour
    Guess how these changes come about? By a "change in allele frequency!"

    Hair length tends to be genetic (excluding dogs whose hair is cut by humans). Thus long-haired dogs and short-haired dogs do have a slightly different "genetic makeup". This difference is not enough to make them separate species, but given enough time and the correct set of circumstances, theoretically two populations of dogs could evolve into two separate species.

    They are evolutionary changes; they are changes by genetic drift. Genetic drift is an evolutionary process in the same way as natural selection: both mechanisms can lead to a change in allele frequencies in a population, and thus evolution.

    Yes, actually. Not just my definition, though. It's the same for all reputable evolutionary biologists. If you could care to explain what is wrong with my definition, I'd be happy to hear it - only I have a strange feeling it might be because you, personally, find it difficult to accept....

    Bingo. As I thought. Thankfully, the state of evolutionary science is not dictated by your personal tastes.

    And in answer to your question, yes, an increase in one particular eye colour does constitute evolution, albeit on an extremely small scale. Could you provide an argument (other than one from personal incredulity) that explains why this isn't evolution?
     
  12. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    If you want to distinguish between natural and artificial selection, then you have to add artificial selection to your list of mechanisms of evolution. If you want to stick to your original list, then you have to treat artificial selection as a special case of natural selection. Either way, artificial selection is certainly a mechanism for evolution.

    In practice (i.e. in the scientific literature) artificial selection is usually treated as part of natural selection. Now that natural selection is well established as a mechanism, the distinction is artificial and arbitrary: humans are, after all, just another part of the environment for other organisms, so treating their actions as part of natural selection is sensible. And that way you don't have to worry about classifying selection that is caused but not intended by humans.
     
  13. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    In the strictest sense, are not humans a natural phenomenon?
     
  14. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    As sfs says, artificial selection is an arbitrary division. We have defined "artificial" as things made by humans. Given that humans are entirely natural, and that humans follow the laws of nature, it really is an arbitrary distinction. Ever since the synthesis of urea we have known that there is nothing chemically different about artificial and natural substances. All that differs is our ability to mimic what is in nature.

    So what is the difference between natural and artificial selection? Nothing. Humans may select for different traits than other environments, but how is that different than different "natural" environments selecting for different traits. Is selection in an arctic environment a completely different mechanism than selection in a desert environment? No. So why is selection in a human environment completely different than selection in a non-human environment?
     
  15. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Thank you for this Discussion. It has been a joy.

    God Bless

    Key.
     
  16. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Addressed and Answered already, to this very same Question and Point. In this Very Topic. As a matter of fact, I even responded to your post already, regarding this.

    God Bless

    Key
     
  17. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    .
     
  18. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You're confusing two things. The theory of evolution is actually a collection of theories that explain how life has diversified over the last 3+ billion years. The definition of evolution delimits the phenomena that the theory deals with. Any genetic change in a population over time is a form of evolution, and is raw material for the theory; nongenetic changes (like increasing height because of better nutrition in humans) are not evolution, and are not dealt with by the theory.

    So, yes, creationists accept that some evolution occurs. The purpose of the definition is not to mark out "things creationists don't believe in", but to describe the limits of the field of evolutionary biology.
     
  19. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Natural selection, random mutation, and speciation are the FACTS of evolution. They are the observed and well documented mechanisms that cause change in organisms that we see around us. The THEORY of evolution proposes that these mechanisms are what shaped the ancestors of today's species from a common ancestral pool.

    The reason that the theory of evolution is the best explanation is that the pattern of homology, both at the morphological and genetic level, matches the pattern that the mechanisms of evolution would produce. That is, the facts match the pattern. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution explains why bats have three middle ear bones but no feathers, why shared ERV's among primates fit into a nested hierarchy, why monotremes lay eggs, and why the guinea pig GULO pseudogene is broken in a different spot than the humand and chimp GULO pseudogene. From my experience, creationism and ID are unable to explain these patterns from basic principles.

    The bigger picture comes into focus when you apply the expected outcome of evolution with the pattern of biodiversity seen in the fossil record, the morphology of living species, and the genomes of living species.

    Creationism puts a limit on how far the process can go. Evolution does not. That is perhaps the biggest difference.

    Definitions are not really up for debate anyway. To even discuss the topic we all need to agree on the definitions of the words we are using. When we say that something evolved we mean that this something changed due to the mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, and even speciation (or possibly genetic isolation). IDists claim that some structures can not come about in such ways (eg irreducible complexity), so there is some friction between this definition and ID. Creationism also claims that all of the features we see did not come about through evolutionary mechanisms, so again there is some friction between the two claims.
     
  20. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    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.

    God Bless

    Key
     
Loading...