What’s your problem?

[shinbits]

I think Jet Black realizes, as I am beginning to, that you are basically on the threshold. You are looking out over a wealth of information that you previously did not have and are actually intellectually honest enough to not back away from it. We can provide you with our sources all day long but they will always be our sources until you go out and do the work for yourself.

I thought this was an important point, really because of it's simplicity. I'm kind of disapointed, because it seemed that everything we've discussed has been leading up to this, but now you say you don't want to post anything more. This really would've been a turning point one way or the other on this thread. It feels like now u guys are the ones running away.

Well. Either way, this entire thread, at least to me, was invaluable. I thank you and Mr. Agnostic for engaging me in this conversation. And as always, thank you also, Jet.


I've gone to far to just stop building on what I currently know about evolution, so I will keep on reading on my own.

But at the same time, I hope that you can see that my objections to evolution are not unfounded, or unthought. I hope u guys can understand my position on this.

I still don't believe there is proof that entire populations have increased in physical ability by natural selection; I hope this doesn't seem stuborn of me, I just haven't been shown any.


But very importantly, I have a wider basic foundation of understanding of the concepts of evolution.


See you all on the next thread.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I thought this was an important point, really because of it's simplicity. I'm kind of disapointed, because it seemed that everything we've discussed has been leading up to this, but now you say you don't want to post anything more. This really would've been a turning point one way or the other on this thread. It feels like now u guys are the ones running away.

I’m not going anywhere. I posted a modern day example of natural selection at work to discuss.

Well. Either way, this entire thread, at least to me, was invaluable. I thank you and Mr. Agnostic for engaging me in this conversation. And as always, thank you also, Jet.

Thank you shinbits. Any time someone is willing to engage in honest and civil discourse about C&E, especially a creationist, I welcome and encourage it. Reps to you.

I've gone to far to just stop building on what I currently know about evolution, so I will keep on reading on my own.

I’m glad to hear it. If nothing else it will give us some more interesting discussion in the future.

But at the same time, I hope that you can see that my objections to evolution are not unfounded, or unthought. I hope u guys can understand my position on this.

It’s not that your objections are unfounded, it’s that they are founded in a misunderstanding (or strawman) of the TofE. Once you learn about what the theory actually states and/or doesn’t state you’ll find that your objections will be irrelevant to the actual theory.

I still don't believe there is proof that entire populations have increased in physical ability by natural selection; I hope this doesn't seem stuborn of me, I just haven't been shown any.

Please don’t get locked in on physical ability (like strength and speed). The sickle cell example is one of the best examples of natural selection at work today. If you can understand the sickle cell scenario then you will have mastered understanding natural selection.

But very importantly, I have a wider basic foundation of understanding of the concepts of evolution.

And this is all that is important right now. Once you are familiar with the basics more advanced concepts will start to come into focus.

 

[Jet Black]

why? this is what your whole point starts to lead up to.

The thing is, that anything I can offer on this forum, or even on the publically available internet is really a disservice to the amount of effort and detail that has actually gone into working these things out. I feel that if you want a real appreciation of the information, the only place that you can get that is by hopping along to a university library and finding some of these things out for yourself. If you really don't have a good university anywhere near you, then ok, I might bend a bit and see what I can do, but the one thing I am not going to do now is to try and compress the work into soundbites.

I'll give an example. One book alone that I have here on this topic is "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas Futuyma. It consists of a hardback tome (and it is a tome) of 763 pages, weigning in at nearly 5 pounds. It's the sort of book where, if someone broke into my house, I could use it as a pretty effective weapon. In addition to all the stuff that is in it, there are something like 1,000 references to other books and papers, and this is only skimming the surface of what has been studied on the matter. For me to pretend that I can give you even the slimmest appreciation of this, well I'd be kidding myself, honestly. The only way for you to really find the stuff that you seem to want to know, is to go and look at it all for yourself. That way, not only do you get the basic info, but you get the detail, and the references to where all that detail came from, and you can research the detail in detail and so on.

 

[Micaiah]

This kind of thing is done with domestic animals. Think of race horses. Animal traits can be selected for and enhanced up to a point at which there is a barrier beyond which further change is not possible. This kind of natural selection represents an overall loss in genetic information in the animal population. Sometimes the selection of a certain trait results in other defects. Pedigree is not without its problems as many animal breeders know. New 'mongrel' blood is introduced into a line to help eliminate some of the problems caused by pedigree.

I am talking primarily about change through natural selection rather than mutation and natural selection. I suspect that is the best a lot of the studies on the performance of animals would be able to do.

 

[Micaiah]

I'll give an example. One book alone that I have here on this topic is "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas Futuyma. It consists of a hardback tome (and it is a tome) of 763 pages, weigning in at nearly 5 pounds. It's the sort of book where, if someone broke into my house, I could use it as a pretty effective weapon.

Just goes to show that even a book on evolution can be put to good use.

 

[Jet Black]

Just goes to show that even a book on evolution can be put to good use.

And that just goes to show your disdain for actually learning anything.

 

[Micaiah]

Come on. You're the one who came up with the idea.

 

[Dannager]

Just goes to show that even a book on evolution can be put to good use.

So is it safe to assume that you're retracting your claims against my arguments on probability and selection?

 

[Loudmouth]

This kind of thing is done with domestic animals. Think of race horses. Animal traits can be selected for and enhanced up to a point at which there is a barrier beyond which further change is not possible.

The rate of change is only limited by the appearance of new variation. As would be expected, you will not see 50 million years worth of mutations come about in a single generation. That we are not able to create the amount of change in the piddly 10,000 years of animal husbandary that is seen in the fossil record is an expected outcome. At the same time, we have produced breeds so dissimilar (eg Great Danes and Chihuahuas) that they would be considered separate species if found in the fossil record. There are also alleles found commonly in domesticated breeds that are not found in their wild counterparts.

This kind of natural selection represents an overall loss in genetic information in the animal population.

And the production of new variation through mutation represents a gain in overall genetic information.

Sometimes the selection of a certain trait results in other defects. Pedigree is not without its problems as many animal breeders know. New 'mongrel' blood is introduced into a line to help eliminate some of the problems caused by pedigree.

The problem of breeding is the concentration of detrimental recessive alleles due to inbreeding.

I am talking primarily about change through natural selection rather than mutation and natural selection.

Evolution includes both, so you need to include both if you are critiquing the theory of evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

My response was prompted by this note:

I still don't believe there is proof that entire populations have increased in physical ability by natural selection; I hope this doesn't seem stuborn of me, I just haven't been shown any.

That may help understand my perpective.

 

[Micaiah]

So is it safe to assume that you're retracting your claims against my arguments on probability and selection?

No. I'm letting the issue simmer for the time being. You need to research population genetics a bit more.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution does not consider GOD. Christian's know that GOD must be considered in ALL things.

Christian evolutionists do consider God in relation to evolution.

Science doesn't because science is incapable of considering God in anything, not just evolution.

Science does not consider God in relation to medicine, but that doesn't mean a Christian fails to do so. When you take medicine do you thank God or the scientist for the cure: or both?

 

[gluadys]

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.

Although it doesn't cover impalas in particular, probably the most accessible study of natural selection in a population is Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch. It does cover more than finches.

 

[Dannager]

No. I'm letting the issue simmer for the time being. You need to research population genetics a bit more.

I'm not sure why I would need to research anything, since you haven't bothered to refute any of my points. You told me my figures are misleading. I asked you which figures you thought were misleading, and in which way they are skewed. You haven't replied. We're waiting on you.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm not sure why I would need to research anything, since you haven't bothered to refute any of my points. You told me my figures are misleading. I asked you which figures you thought were misleading, and it which way they are skewed. You haven't replied. We're waiting on you.

I don't think Micaiah will ever answer your questions. He will not tell you how your figures are misleading, and he will never provide a method of measuring the increase in "information" he demands as proof of evolution. He tries to present himself as knowledgeable, but I suspect he is abysmally ignorant of genetics and information theory.

He has used the tactic before. I predict that, if we continue to press him, he will duck out, and work some other forum for a while, and return months later when he thinks he has been forgotten. I think he just wants to impress people. I know he has impressed me.

 

[Jet Black]

No. I'm letting the issue simmer for the time being. You need to research population genetics a bit more.

atually I am quite well versed in the field, and there was nothing wrong with the point that dannagner was making. Since you seem to be implying that there is some flaw with what he said, why don't you point it out for us?

It seems rather odd that you are claiming that he is wrong in some fairly esoteric aspect of biology, when you clearly didn't even understand the analogy that he was making, regarding the consistent removal of one individual with one trait from the population on the overall distibution of the properties of the population. then of course there is your amusing use of the word tacit, which you are avoiding like the plague. Stop being so dishonest and pretending that you know things that you quite clearly don't.