What’s your problem?

[Jet Black]

Do you have any calculations to back up your claim to show that statistically the evolution of say the horse evolution could occur.

put the goalposts back.

A tacit admission that you did in fact pluck them out of the air. Thankyou.

tacit? it was blatant. Did you even understand the argument he was presenting? Looks like you need a dictionary as well as a maths book now.

The claim I make is that your numbers are misleading and that the rate of survival of a beneficial is so low that it is essentially irrelevant. That is because there are a number of other factors that can kill off an animal other than those things related to the phenotypic changes that improve and animals ability to run faster. Disease would be one example.

I answer the question posed above with a resounding no. It appears that you do not understand what dannager was saying. way to go.

You seem totally unaware of these important aspects of population genetics. I suggest you carry out further research.

you seem totally unaware of simple mathematics. I suggest an elementary maths book and multiplication tables.

 

[Dannager]

Do you have any calculations to back up your claim to show that statistically the evolution of say the horse evolution could occur.

Woah, woah, woah, I thought we were talking about impalas here. Where did horse evolution come from? Don't try and move those goalposts, Micaiah. I gave you some illustrative numbers on impala selection. Let's stick to the subject, shall we?

A tacit admission that you did in fact pluck them out of the air. Thankyou.

I wouldn't call that an admission - you were the one who missed the fact that I declared them as "plucked out of the air" to begin with. Care to admit to that? Again, if you've got a problem with the individual numbers, speak up. We're listening.
EDIT: Jet Black pointed out something rather notable - tacit? Do you even know what "tacit" means? It means "unspoken or implied". I told you plain as day that I plucked them "out of the air". What's this "tacit" nonsense? Please, don't use important sounding words if you don't know their meaning. It's making you look foolish.

The claim I make is that your numbers are misleading

Which ones? I haven't seen you point out any criticisms yet. In fact, I already did some of your work for you - and showed you how changing the numbers would not work out in your argument's favor. In the off chance that you were planning on objecting to any of them, I saved you the embarrassment.

and that the rate of survival of a beneficial is so low that it is essentially irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how low it is. It only matters that it is higher than the rate of survival of a detrimental mutation - and it is higher. That is certainly not irrelevant.

That is because there are a number of other factors that can kill off an animal other than those things related to the phenotypic changes that improve and animals ability to run faster.

And yet there remain things that can kill off an animal that are reliant on those very changes. Even if one animal is killed due to a detrimental gene or even if one animal survives because of a beneficial gene, the chance of the population's genes improving rises. That was your point, was it not?

Disease would be one example.

I'd rather stick with impalas and running for right now. Besides, you don't want to go into disease - your argument would be butchered. We'll get into disease when we're good and finished with impalas and running.

You seem totally unaware of these important aspects of population genetics. I suggest you carry out further research.

I'll ignore this as I'm sure you'll retract it given that your argument has been handed back to you in pieces.

 

[Dannager]

The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive. Evolution does not consider GOD. Christians know that GOD must be considered in ALL things and above all things..

I'm afraid we've got more important things to deal with right now than this post, LittleNipper. We'll get back to you eventually, I'm sure.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm afraid we've got more important things to deal with right now than this post, LittleNipper. We'll get back to you eventually, I'm sure.

Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.

 

[caravelair]

Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.

unless he doesn't exist, in which case everything is more important.

 

[Jet Black]

Christian's know that GOD must be considered in ALL things.

ITT LittleNipper denounces the theory of relativity, football results, shopping lists, Car manuals and flatpack-furniture instructions.

 

[Dannager]

Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.

And one day you will realize that you are not God and thus your posts do not warrant the same level of attention. Apparently today is not that day, though. Now, back to Micaiah.

 

[Jet Black]

Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.

well go away then.

 

[caravelair]

The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive.

if it's not subjective, why are there such a large variety of different interpretations of scripture? sounds subjective to me.

Evolution does not consider GOD.

neither does any theory in all of science. it is not possible for science to consider the supernatural. such things are untestable.

Christians know that GOD must be considered in ALL things and above all things..

christian scientists know that god cannot be tested via science, and thus cannot be a part of any theory that science can consider.

 

[Jet Black]

if it's not subjective, why are there such a large variety of different interpretations of scripture? sounds subjective to me.



neither does any theory in all of science. it is not possible for science to consider the supernatural. such things are untestable.



christian scientists know that god cannot be tested via science, and thus cannot be a part of any theory that science can consider.

let's not wreck a good thread with the mindless off topic rantings of LittleNipper

 

[Micaiah]

Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.

As you say LittleNipper, God is the most important Person. It is good to hear from someone else who truly believes that.

 

[shinbits]

They can have offspring that are a half second slower, but that happening is less likely with a faster impala than it would be were the slower impala reproducing. Evolution is about probabilities, shinbits.
.

Okay.

On this particular, aspect of mutations, I'll just ask one more question, and I guess we can move on.

As far as studies that have shown that animals have gradually increased performance over time, are there any you can think of and post a link for?

 

[Dannager]

As you say LittleNipper, God is the most important Person. It is good to hear from someone else who truly believes that.

And I'm not here, I suppose?

 

[Micaiah]

Okay.

On this particular, aspect of mutations, I'll just ask one more question, and I guess we can move on.

As far as studies that have shown that animals have gradually increased performance over time, are there any you can think of and post a link for?

Yes, back to the topic at hand. I'd also like to see a study that showed how over the last 200 years the averege speed of the impala increased by 'x' percent.

I'd also like a discussion on the probability of an impala population evolving.

 

[Jet Black]

On this particular, aspect of mutations, I'll just ask one more question, and I guess we can move on.

As far as studies that have shown that animals have gradually increased performance over time, are there any you can think of and post a link for?

it's not an aspect of mutations.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, back to the topic at hand. I'd also like to see a study that showed how over the last 200 years the averege speed of the impala increased by 'x' percent.

I'd also like a discussion on the probability of an impala population evolving.

oh, you mean neatly scoop out that bit in the middle with your shoddy math and english?

 

[Dannager]

Yes, back to the topic at hand. I'd also like to see a study that showed how over the last 200 years the averege speed of the impala increased by 'x' percent.

Man, what? What the heck is wrong with you? You seriously think you need a study on impala speed to evidence this argument? It was illustrative. Any evidence of improvement over time would be enough to refute your position.

I'd also like a discussion on the probability of an impala population evolving.

Isn't that what we were having? How about continuing it? There was a lot in my post, I'm sure you can either find something to respond to or offer a retraction on your own position.

 

[Jet Black]

Man, what? What the heck is wrong with you?

he is under the mistaken impression that we didn't notice him sweeping the statements of his untenable position under the carpet.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Furthermore, there has been nothing to show that these animals run any faster then they have in prior generations; this would give weight to the theory if there was, because it would show that natural selection is indeed phasing out the weaker traits.

Okay… although I have no explicit studies on impala speed you should be able to pull together what you have learned so far to understand the bigger picture.

It doesn’t matter if it’s an eagle with poor sight or a slow impala. Any trait that gives an organism a disadvantage leads to less reproductive success in the long run. I think you understand that much at this point. The next logical step is to think about what that means for the population. If all the detrimental traits reproduce less then each generation has less of them. Over time, after a number of generations, this makes for eagles with better eyesight and faster impalas overall.

Going back to the sickle cell anemia example I gave you awhile back you should be able see the real life example of this happening today. Sickle cell anemia occurs in the presence of a recessive allele coding for hemoglobin but because it also gives resistance to malaria there are places where it is prevalent in a population. This is because the selection pressure of the malaria has weeded out those that are not resistant to it.

 

[Jet Black]

a number of studies showing trends in population features over time have been carried out on guppies, elephants, lizards, North Sea Fish, pigeons, songbirds, finches, fruit fly, bacteria, plants. pretty much a representative sample of the whole gamut of life on earth come to think of it.

Just arguing against the idea that there would be a general statistical trend on a feature due to some natural pressure is pretty perverse and logically flawed really.