Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Montalban]

Dodos died out because they couldn't compete with invasive wildlife - that, and desperate sailors will eat anything. Not because they were unsuccessful breeders.

Actually that's not entirely accurate. If they bred in a different pattern THEN they might have been able to compete

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Actually that's not entirely accurate. If they bred in a different pattern THEN they might have been able to compete

So if dodos laid twelve eggs a year, rather than a single egg, would they have survived?

Are you saying that they would have survived if they had a different trait?

 

[Montalban]

tau·tol·o·gy
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.Tautology | Define Tautology at Dictionary.com

Pity you can only keep repeating your tautology, not justifying it.

I did. But the response of "no it's not" repeated isn't discussion

Even people on your side ON THIS THREAD have recognised here it's a tautology!

Do you believe that the tautology, "survival of the fittest", is an accurate descriptor of evolutionary theory?

As well as that I've already presented evidence to you on this before.

Here's some recognition that it's a tautology...
"From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled "Darwin's Mistakes," by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.) That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is."
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed), p571.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7539880-3/#post56877025

 

[Montalban]

So if dodos laid twelve eggs a year, rather than a single egg, would they have survived?

Perhaps. If they were able to build burrows, that might have helped too.

Are you saying that they would have survived if they had a different trait?

That is what evolutionary theory suggests. I'm surprised you didn't know.

You're insisting however that they would have died regardless.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

"From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled "Darwin's Mistakes," by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.) That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is."
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed), p571.

Bethell was right - evolution cannot always predict what traits will be useful. That's because the same trait can be harmful or beneficial, depening on circumstances.

Having the genes for white fur is useful in snowy environments, as it acts like camouflage. Having white fur in a forest is less useful, as they would stand out like neon lights.

Your quote also notes that breeders often choose animals for appearance rather than fitness, but that's an example of artifical selection, not natural selection. It's hard to imagine pugs stalking their prey when some of them can barely breathe properly.

That is what evolutionary theory suggests. I'm surprised you didn't know.

You're insisting however that they would have died regardless.

When did I suggest that?

 

[Montalban]

Bethell was right - evolution cannot always predict what traits will be useful. That's because the same trait can be harmful or beneficial, depening on circumstances.

One doesn't know this till after the fact

Having the genes for white fur is useful in snowy environments, as it acts like camouflage. Having white fur in a forest is less useful, as they would stand out like neon lights.

Like this?

Your quote also notes that breeders often choose animals for appearance rather than fitness, but that's an example of artifical selection, not natural selection. It's hard to imagine pugs stalking their prey when some of them can barely breathe properly.

And yet it was Darwin who used the example of pigeon breeders to demonstrate (by way of (false) analogy) how evolution works

When did I suggest that?

Then what was your interjection regarding Dodos breeding?

 

[Assyrian]

tau·tol·o·gy
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.Tautology | Define Tautology at Dictionary.com

Yes I know what a tautology is,

That which survives survives
​

is a tautology

Survival of the fittest
​

isn't.

I did. But the response of "no it's not" repeated isn't discussion

Even people on your side ON THIS THREAD have recognised here it's a tautology!

I showed you there was more to fitness than survival, there were traits that meant the organism was better suited to its environment that allowed it to survive. You even recognised these traits are involved. Traits are not the same as survival, so survival of organism with these traits isn't a tautology.

As well as that I've already presented evidence to you on this before.

Here's some recognition that it's a tautology...
"From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled "Darwin's Mistakes," by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.) That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is."
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed), p571.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7539880-3/#post56877025

Your own quote contradicts you.

Let me know how you get on with your nested hierarchy of cars.

 

[Smidlee]

But again, I don't see how this proves humans and chimps aren't closely related.

The point is to prove that human and chimps are close relatives. So far the idea you change a few genes around for a few million years and bingo the planet of apes. If you want to show ape and man are relatives use the similarities in genes if you show they are not then point to the protein differences.
.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

One doesn't know this till after the fact

Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't predict the future (nothing and no-one can), we can only judge success by the results.

Then what was your interjection regarding Dodos breeding?

I wrote "I didn't claim that [asteroids change DNA]. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster." You replied "Like the dodo?"

I assume you were using dodos as an example of animals which failed to breed successfully. Like most animals, they died because they faced a sudden catastrophy (in this case, invasive species) and couldn't adapt quickly enough.

I don't quite see what the monkey is about.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If you want to show ape and man are relatives use the similarities in genes if you show they are not then point to the protein differences.

Humans and chimps are related - we can tell because we share a large proportion of DNA - but obviously we're not identical, especially when it comes to phenotype differences.

The point is to prove that human and chimps are close relatives.

Oh? I thought you were a creationist.

 

[Smidlee]

Humans and chimps are related - we can tell because we share a large proportion of DNA - but obviously we're not identical, especially when it comes to phenotype differences.


Oh? I thought you were a creationist.

So the question that needs to be address , is DNA what makes us human?

 

[shernren]

No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.

I think I need some training in Orwellian brainwashing from you.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So the question that needs to be address , is DNA what makes us human?

Yes. And No.

From a strictly biological point of view, genes give us everything. They give us our features which put us in separate taxonomies - such as our large brains, naked skin, sights as our primary sense, strong opposable thumbs, an upright stance and many other things.

From a religious or philosophical point of view, no. Genes can't tell you anything about what it means to be human. We may 50% genetically identical to bananas, but that doesn't mean bananas are half-human.

Such questions never have straight answers.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes. And No.

From a strictly biological point of view, genes give us everything. They give us our features which put us in separate taxonomies - such as our large brains, naked skin, sights as our primary sense, strong opposable thumbs, an upright stance and many other things.

Genes are blue-print of proteins. Adding spider DNA (genes) in a human doesn't create Spider-man.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Genes are blue-print of proteins. Adding spider DNA (genes) in a human doesn't create Spider-man.

True. But only the most reductionist biologists (such as Richard Dawkins) will tell you that humans are merely a collection of genes.

 

[Assyrian]

And yet it was Darwin who used the example of pigeon breeders to demonstrate (by way of (false) analogy) how evolution works

No its a good analogy, the only difference is that the traits which help pigeons survive in a pigeon fancier's loft, or pugs survive in a lap environment, is different from traits that help them survive in the wild. But that is true in the wild too, adapting to one environment can leave you less suited to another one. It is not as if Victorian pigeon breeders were getting in and genetically altering the genes of their pigeon flocks. Nor did the pigeon's genetic code somehow realise this was artificial selection and respond differently. The pigeons stocks were responding to the artificial selective pressure the way they respond to natural ones, you just have different traits being selected. In fact the pigeon breeding only worked because the pigeon breeders were using the pigeon population's natural response to selection.

 

[Montalban]

How a person of intelligence choosing traits is analogous to nature not choosing is still not known to me

 

[Montalban]

Yes I know what a tautology is,

That which survives survives
​

is a tautology

Survival of the fittest
​

isn't.

Yes it is because what is 'fit' is simply determined by that which survives.

I showed you there was more to fitness than survival, there were traits that meant the organism was better suited to its environment that allowed it to survive. You even recognised these traits are involved. Traits are not the same as survival, so survival of organism with these traits isn't a tautology.

No. You suggested examples of fitness which are based on you supposing that they are fit because the animals surivive

Something with white fur is 'fit' because it survives.

Something with brown fur is 'fit' because it survives.

and so on

Your own quote contradicts you.

Only in part - firstly they note that people call it a tautology (and I also note that others here do too)

they then suggest another criteria but offer nothing but a person picking traits which has no relevence to nature.

The only real criteria is survival

 

[Montalban]

Talkorigins give the classic muddled apology:

Firstly they pass the buck by claiming that the phrase "survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's but urged upon him. This is to abrogate responsibility because Darwin (a person with a brain) used it, and not only freely did so but said it was the preferred description



However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper [1976: sect. 37]. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.(Ibid.)

They go on with more contradiction here:
This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos [1996] [note 1]). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins [1996]). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.(Ibid.)

Which is contradicted by their own argument AGAINST design. They claim that a proof we're not designed is that our eyes are so poorly constructed - with a blind-spot. Our eyes very 'inefficiencies' they use as a proof. Yet they're saying that Darwin would exclude inefficient creatures. Darwin does not!

The peacock bird being one example, (which happened to trouble him a lot) with is massive 'inefficient' tail

 

[Montalban]

Wiki has this interesting thing to say:

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection

So they're saying that biologists now prefer 'natural selection' to describe evolution. It's even worse that "survival of the fittest"

Natural selection means nature selects.

That's it.

It's even less helpful