[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I’m really hoping someone will bring up Nebraska Man as “evidence”. Pleeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz, someone, pleeeeeezzz. I’m begging you.
Okay. Since you asked so nice, here ya go.
Just look at that prominent brow ridge, and that protuberant nose. You can certainly imagining him crouching in his cave. A Neanderthal if I ever saw one.
Oink.
I prefer my Nebraska Man with teriyaki sauce.[/quote]
Awesomeness!!
…well, you can’t play the game without following the rules. If you want to beat science, you have to beat it on it’s terms, yesh?
…and here creationism falls short: it offers no other scenarios that adheres to the strict scientific principles science imposes on itself. Instead creationism feeds off science and uses faulty reasoning to discount science without offering a measurable alternative…
…by definition, god is unmeasurable. Therefore, god falls outside of the realm of science, and therefore, inspite of the continued insistance of creationists, science makes no effort to prove or disprove the existence of god…
…this discussion is essentially moot. There is no reason why you can’t appreciate creation on your terms, and enjoy your religious experience without science hovering above your head like Damocles’ sword. IOW, science takes nothing away from you…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:What do you do when evidence “fits” more than one profile. I ask this both facetiously in light of the babe pics and seriously in light of the general discussion.
…well, you can’t play the game without following the rules. If you want to beat science, you have to beat it on it’s terms, yesh?
…and here creationism falls short: it offers no other scenarios that adheres to the strict scientific principles science imposes on itself. Instead creationism feeds off science and uses faulty reasoning to discount science without offering a measurable alternative…
…by definition, god is unmeasurable. Therefore, god falls outside of the realm of science, and therefore, inspite of the continued insistance of creationists, science makes no effort to prove or disprove the existence of god…
…this discussion is essentially moot. There is no reason why you can’t appreciate creation on your terms, and enjoy your religious experience without science hovering above your head like Damocles’ sword. IOW, science takes nothing away from you…
All this ^^^ when in effect you have placed your faith in a pseudo-science endowed with religious overtones while smugly and condescendingly excluding all who disagree with your sect. You are everything you despise in your opponent. You are a believer.
[/quote]
…you insisting that this is so, doesn’t make it so. Just like religion and god only becomes an issue when i’m on this forum discussing with the likes of you, science only becomes an issue when i’m on this forum discussing with the likes of you. For someone who’s harping on personal freedom all the time, you’re ever so eager to enslave yourself to the dogma of your religion of choice. The same cannot be said of science, altough you claim otherwise ofcourse, which is only a testament to the irrational thoughtpatterns you believe are true…
Forgive my Naivete, but an aspect of Darwinism has always confused me.
That is the statement “survival of the fittest” with regards to natural selection.
Fittest for what?
Fittest for surviving presumably.
Which seems to equate to “survival of the survivors”.
Which of course is a rhetorical tautology.
Also there would seem to be anthropomorphistic problems with the use of the term “selection.”
I’m sure that evolutionary biologists would use these terms in much more meaningfull ways than laymen like myself.
Can anyone explain “survival of the fittest” to me in a better manner or point me to a good link that would?
[quote]pushharder wrote:Buddy, you’re facing a big, red barn with your fingers in your ears saying, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, I can’t see no stinkin’ barn so it aint there…nah, nah, nah…”
You have established a belief system in something that it is invisible and unknowable at the current time. You have faith that eventually facts will emerge to support your faith. You preach your dogma as “The way, The truth and The life” and berate those who don’t walk forward and kneel at your altar. You are just as much if not more religious than any dedicated missionary that ever set foot on earth.
I’m not just insisting this is so, your posts speak for themselves.
[/quote]
Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—
*Scientist pulls out baseball baat.
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
*Scientist breaks Intelligent Design Advocate’s kneecap.
Intelligent Design Advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the “naturalistic” explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design Advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible — it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design Advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can’t rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn’t prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let’s not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design Advocate: That’s a load of bullsh*t sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we’ll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations, and empirical data. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
[ picked from the web ]
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Forgive my Naivete, but an aspect of Darwinism has always confused me.
That is the statement “survival of the fittest” with regards to natural selection.
Fittest for what?
Fittest for surviving presumably.
Which seems to equate to “survival of the survivors”.
Which of course is a rhetorical tautology.
Also there would seem to be anthropomorphistic problems with the use of the term “selection.”
I’m sure that evolutionary biologists would use these terms in much more meaningfull ways than laymen like myself.
Can anyone explain “survival of the fittest” to me in a better manner or point me to a good link that would? [/quote]
…if one member of a species is healthier, better equiped to catch prey, has nicer colors or is simply bigger, gives off more feromones and such, this member is more likely to procreate more often. It’s offspring will possess the same genes, and are therefore more likely to survive and procreate themselves, thus continueing the best genetic bloodline possible…
…those members of a species that suffer genetic defects, or are simply less attractive to the opposite sex, who are smaller, less powerfull, they are unlikely to procreate and with them an inferiour bloodline dies off…
…this is natural selection through survival of the fittest…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since Jab brought up the peppered moth…he was serious about this moth thing. Hope he has a wet rag handy to wipe the egg off his face. Read carefully, folks.
[i]What About The Peppered Moth?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Perhaps the classic “proof” of evolution has been the observed color shift in the population of England’s peppered moths. Pictures of dark and light peppered moths on various tree trunks have appeared in every biology textbook. It’s on the tip of the tongues of evolutionary spokesmen worldwide.
Here’s the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile.
Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees. Soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged. By the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became “Darwin’s Missing Evidence”?natural selection in action.
Creationists were never concerned with this population shift. In fact, they were amused as evolutionists made such a big fuss over it. If this is the best “proof” of evolution, then evolution is without proof.
Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited.
The textbooks seldom point out that in recent decades, as England has cleaned its atmosphere, the shift has reversed and now the lights are the more common form once again. Remember, this shift and shift back again have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of moths, or how moths and people could share a common ancestor.
And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell’s compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). [b]Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. [/b]Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.[/i]
I like the very last phrase^^. Jab, do you consider yourself a knowledgeable evolutionist?[/quote]
Firstly, no I don’t consider myself very knowledgeable. I’m fairly well read and know more than the lay-person but am by no means a scientist.
Anyway that article is stupid. The changing of phenotype is evolution; there is nothing in the theory that precludes changing back to something. For example, atavisms; these are genetic throwbacks to past times. Such as, ducks with teeth, or humans with tails. Bits of DNA aren’t just got rid of, even if they might not be used again. The fact that they changed back is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory and predictions.
The moths have never been used as “proof” for there is no such thing in science. They are evidence. And they are used as a simple explanation for people just learning about evolution.
So what they aren’t evidence for humans having a common ancestor? That’s not what they are used to demonstrate. Genetic and DNA evidence shows us that we share a common ancestor well enough.
And so what if the changes are limited? That is part of the nature of evolution.
The article mentions that both varieties were present before the observation. Yes, well done. This is why natural selection works; one variety survives better than another. The moths were lucky that neither variety died out either during the IR or when the trees had been cleaned up, because they were able to adapt and not go extinct.
The point about the photographs being staged is stupid. Insects are difficult to photograph! However, the point that moths don’t do this is a lie; http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#mothrest
Additionally, they are just being used as a demonstration of camouflage.
Really that article debunks this nonsense better than I can so I recommend you read it, and also recommend you use creationist canards that haven’t been thoroughly debunked.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Forgive my Naivete, but an aspect of Darwinism has always confused me.
That is the statement “survival of the fittest” with regards to natural selection.
Fittest for what?
Fittest for surviving presumably.
Which seems to equate to “survival of the survivors”.
Which of course is a rhetorical tautology.
Also there would seem to be anthropomorphistic problems with the use of the term “selection.”
I’m sure that evolutionary biologists would use these terms in much more meaningfull ways than laymen like myself.
Can anyone explain “survival of the fittest” to me in a better manner or point me to a good link that would?
…if one member of a species is healthier, better equiped to catch prey, has nicer colors or is simply bigger, gives off more feromones and such, this member is more likely to procreate more often. It’s offspring will possess the same genes, and are therefore more likely to survive and procreate themselves, thus continueing the best genetic bloodline possible…
…those members of a species that suffer genetic defects, or are simply less attractive to the opposite sex, who are smaller, less powerfull, they are unlikely to procreate and with them an inferiour bloodline dies off…
…this is natural selection through survival of the fittest…
[/quote]
Thanks alot for the reply.
I do however understand the mechanisms behind “survival of the fittest.” I guess I was asking a more philosophical question.
Still stuck with the Tautology “survival of the fittest for surviving”
So cheers for the reply, but…
in trems of meeting my criteria for explaining this to me in a better manner = MASSIVE FAIL.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Forgive my Naivete, but an aspect of Darwinism has always confused me.
That is the statement “survival of the fittest” with regards to natural selection.
Fittest for what?
Fittest for surviving presumably.
Which seems to equate to “survival of the survivors”.
Which of course is a rhetorical tautology.
Also there would seem to be anthropomorphistic problems with the use of the term “selection.”
I’m sure that evolutionary biologists would use these terms in much more meaningfull ways than laymen like myself.
Can anyone explain “survival of the fittest” to me in a better manner or point me to a good link that would? [/quote]
Survival of the fittest was coined by someone (Herbert Spencer) trying to describe Darwinian natural selection.
Its intended meaning is “survival of the most fit”, or “best suited” to the (local) environment, not “survival of the one in best physical shape” or “best suited to surviving” and so your tautology is (an easy to make) misunderstanding.
Because of this and various other reasons it is not an accurate or useful term and biologists today don’t really use it, so I recommend you do what they do and stick to “natural selection”.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Really that article debunks this nonsense better than I can so I recommend you read it, and also recommend you use creationist canards that haven’t been thoroughly debunked.[/quote]
Forget it, Jab. Brother Push has already judged Talk Origins to be a Fundamentalist Evangelist Evolutionist website of the first order, whose information is completely suspect, and should be disregarded by knowledgeable evolutionists.
“Knowledgeable,” of course, being a euphemism for “sympathetic to creationism.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
In an infinite universe, the possibilities of something happening over such a long period of time are actually quite good. Not quite 1 for EVERYTHING, but evolution is certainly hovering somewhere near 1.
This is a myth or more accurately the classic Lenin line, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Delve into the statistical probabilities of your claim and you’ll come to find out it’s a whole different world than what you’ve been told.
[/quote]
Weak vs strong anthropic principle?
Really?
2009?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Forgive my Naivete, but an aspect of Darwinism has always confused me.
That is the statement “survival of the fittest” with regards to natural selection.
Fittest for what?
Fittest for surviving presumably.
Which seems to equate to “survival of the survivors”.
Which of course is a rhetorical tautology.
Also there would seem to be anthropomorphistic problems with the use of the term “selection.”
I’m sure that evolutionary biologists would use these terms in much more meaningfull ways than laymen like myself.
Can anyone explain “survival of the fittest” to me in a better manner or point me to a good link that would?
Survival of the fittest was coined by someone (Herbert Spencer) trying to describe Darwinian natural selection.
Its intended meaning is “survival of the most fit”, or “best suited” to the (local) environment, not “survival of the one in best physical shape” or “best suited to surviving” and so your tautology is (an easy to make) misunderstanding.
Because of this and various other reasons it is not an accurate or useful term and biologists today don’t really use it, so I recommend you do what they do and stick to “natural selection”.
[/quote]
Cheers for that! good answer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
…You may have heard of the story of the Peppered moth? In pre industrial times, there were a preponderance of light coloured moths compared to dark ones; they camouflaged nicely against the light coloured trees and better avoided predators. With the industrial revolution came pollution, and darker coloured trees. A funny thing was observed in urban areas; the dark coloured moths became the common phenotypic variant. This is a change in phenotype at a species level, otherwise known as macroevolution…
Since Jab brought up the peppered moth…he was serious about this moth thing. Hope he has a wet rag handy to wipe the egg off his face. Read carefully, folks.
[i]What About The Peppered Moth?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Perhaps the classic “proof” of evolution has been the observed color shift in the population of England’s peppered moths. Pictures of dark and light peppered moths on various tree trunks have appeared in every biology textbook. It’s on the tip of the tongues of evolutionary spokesmen worldwide.
Here’s the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile.
Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees. Soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged. By the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became “Darwin’s Missing Evidence”?natural selection in action.
Creationists were never concerned with this population shift. In fact, they were amused as evolutionists made such a big fuss over it. If this is the best “proof” of evolution, then evolution is without proof.
Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited.
The textbooks seldom point out that in recent decades, as England has cleaned its atmosphere, the shift has reversed and now the lights are the more common form once again. Remember, this shift and shift back again have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of moths, or how moths and people could share a common ancestor.
And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell’s compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). [b]Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. [/b]Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.[/i]
I like the very last phrase^^. Jab, do you consider yourself a knowledgeable evolutionist?[/quote]
The notion that the photographs were fake seems highly unlikely, given that the scientific community validating the theory would easily know the natural habitat of the moth. Just out of curiosity, where would you propose the moths resided if not on trees or rocks? Glued on to trees, hahahahaha. They would have used a super tankers worth of superglue.
Also, as I do know a thing or two about genetics, this articles basis is almost completely true! New genes are generally not created by compatible species fucking, it’s just not the way it works. New genes can be created by genetic mutations, which either: subtract, add, or change a section of the genetic sequence. Sometimes new genetic traits can be created without mutations if two dominant traits are combined (for instance curly hair parent 1 has a child with strait hair parent 2 and the baby has traits of both). However this is not the truth in the peppered moth case.
The author does a fine job of outlining natural selection (which is the primary basis for evolution), but somehow thinks he is disproving it! The two proven occurrences of natural selection combined with genetic mutation and post Mendelian genetics over a large timeline equates to intriguing possibilities.
Think about it! The article just showed that a remarkably different trait of moths was created in just a few years. Is it so beyond you to wonder what could happen in a few thousand?
For the record i will take on all creationists with regards to this topic. I believe no one can logically prove me wrong.
Please, someone try to find a major/valid scientific proposal validating creationism, or one that debunks evolution published this side of the century.
Seriously, you won’t prove me wrong:P
Just because we can’t observe something doesn’t mean we don’t have copious amounts of evidence supporting that something.
And even if we didn’t creationism still wouldn’t be science.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Just because we can’t observe something doesn’t mean we don’t have copious amounts of evidence supporting that something.
And even if we didn’t creationism still wouldn’t be science.[/quote]
Err…I may have misunderstood but I didn’t think anyone was arguing that creationism was one of the sciences.
I thought that the reason anyone is having this debate in the first place is because the two are antithetical.
Another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs.