Darwin destroyed in new book

[alang1216]

Exactly. I’m looking for examples of speciation via natural selection.

Why do you care how speciation happened?

 

[ding]

As I wrote, his theories have been enhanced by additional data but they have not been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In effect what I just wrote does prove slight successive changes as wrong. What exactly do you think long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes means?

 

[ding]

The examples I gave are the results of speciation. Natural selection is one likely mechanism.

If humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor - as is commonly believed - and humans have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, how can you explain the difference in the number of chromosomes without using genetic mutation as the explanation? How can you explain the difference in the number of chromosomes using slight successive changes as an explanation. Darwin didn't know about genes, if he had he would have considered both natural selection and genetic mutations as drivers for evolution with genetic mutations as the best explanation for the ORIGIN of a new species.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why do you care how speciation happened?

I’m not sure how you mean that, and I don’t want to answer a question you are not asking.

I noticed you asked that question of me, but not any of those who are insisting that Darwinism is the only acceptable answer to that question.

Anyway, I rarely dodge questions, so I’ll make a stab at answering that one, and you can let me know if I misunderstood.

I care because I enjoy pondering philosophical questions as an intellectual exercise. For example, if there actually were any evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, then that narrows down questions like “why are we here?” And “What is the purpose of life?” They won’t actually be answered, but we can eliminate several possible answers.

Also, when people come onto a political forum or in physical political venues, such as town halls, school boards or Congress, and insist that a falsehood be treated as not only the truth, but the only acceptable speech, it makes me wonder what the agenda is behind that.

You may have heard of the famous textbook sticker case, in which people sued over stickers on a science textbook that recommended an open mind and critical thinking. Unbelievably, they won their case, and the stickers were removed. If any political ideal, philosophy, or school of thought, requires to suspension of critical thinking and open-mindedness, I want no part of it.

 

[alang1216]

In effect what I just wrote does prove slight successive changes as wrong. What exactly do you think long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes means?

Natural selection is not linked to any time frame: high selection pressure = rapid speciation, low selection pressure = little or no speciation. It could that a very short time to create a new species, in the case of viruses for instance, or it could that millennia for creatures that live in stable environments.

 

[alang1216]

I’m not sure how you mean that, and I don’t want to answer a question you are not asking.

I noticed you asked that question of me, but not any of those who are insisting that Darwinism is the only acceptable answer to that question.

Anyway, I rarely dodge questions, so I’ll make a stab at answering that one, and you can let me know if I misunderstood.

I care because I enjoy pondering philosophical questions as an intellectual exercise. For example, if there actually were any evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, then that narrows down questions like “why are we here?” And “What is the purpose of life?” They won’t actually be answered, but we can eliminate several possible answers.

Also, when people come onto a political forum or in physical political venues, such as town halls, school boards or Congress, and insist that a falsehood be treated as not only the truth, but the only acceptable speech, it makes me wonder what the agenda is behind that.

You may have heard of the famous textbook sticker case, in which people sued over stickers on a science textbook that recommended an open mind and critical thinking. Unbelievably, they won their case, and the stickers were removed. If any political ideal, philosophy, or school of thought, requires to suspension of critical thinking and open-mindedness, I want no part of it.

It may not always be obvious why speciation occurs but it is usually obvious that it has:

The results you'll notice are exactly the same, regardless of the mechanism.

I found no real fault in the positions of those who accept evolution as opposed to those that deny it.

 

[alang1216]

If humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor - as is commonly believed - and humans have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, how can you explain the difference in the number of chromosomes without using genetic mutation as the explanation? How can you explain the difference in the number of chromosomes using slight successive changes as an explanation.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982).

Darwin didn't know about genes, if he had he would have considered both natural selection and genetic mutations as drivers for evolution with genetic mutations as the best explanation for the ORIGIN of a new species.

You're probably right.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not sure how you mean that, and I don’t want to answer a question you are not asking.

I noticed you asked that question of me, but not any of those who are insisting that Darwinism is the only acceptable answer to that question.

Anyway, I rarely dodge questions, so I’ll make a stab at answering that one, and you can let me know if I misunderstood.

I care because I enjoy pondering philosophical questions as an intellectual exercise. For example, if there actually were any evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, then that narrows down questions like “why are we here?” And “What is the purpose of life?” They won’t actually be answered, but we can eliminate several possible answers.

Also, when people come onto a political forum or in physical political venues, such as town halls, school boards or Congress, and insist that a falsehood be treated as not only the truth, but the only acceptable speech, it makes me wonder what the agenda is behind that.

You may have heard of the famous textbook sticker case, in which people sued over stickers on a science textbook that recommended an open mind and critical thinking. Unbelievably, they won their case, and the stickers were removed. If any political ideal, philosophy, or school of thought, requires to suspension of critical thinking and open-mindedness, I want no part of it.

There is overwhelming evidence of natural selection being the driving force behind evolution.

You insist it is not with literally nothing more than, "because I say so".

Your emotional appeals to fear and superstition are no argument.

 

[scruffy]

If you are referring to Darwin's Origin of Species, Darwin wasn't aware of genes when he wrote Origin of Species. In fact, I'm not sure he was aware of genes before he died even though Mendel published his work on genes about the same time Darwin published Origin of Species. Mendel's work wasn't discovered until two scientists were arguing over which one of them was the "Father of Genetics" until they discovered Mendel's work and realized that Mendel was.

Now if you are referring to the actual origin of species then I would I say that sounds better than slight successive changes which the fossil record does not really support.

Continual small changes happen all the time.

The big visible ones occur when the system enters a new equilibrium. In math they're called "catastrophes", like when the trajectory falls off the edge of a cusp. (See my thread on mushrooms for a picture).

The genetics are not really the issue, the molecular biophysics of self-assembly is the issue. A point mutation in a gene can make the difference between one topology and another, so for instance, without it you get a cat and with it you get a dog.

 

[scruffy]

In effect what I just wrote does prove slight successive changes as wrong. What exactly do you think long periods of stasis followed by abrupt changes means?

It means your system topology has changed.

Look here:

Catastrophe theory | Nonlinearity, Dynamical Systems, Bifurcations

Catastrophe theory, in mathematics, a set of methods used to study and classify the ways in which a system can undergo sudden large changes in behaviour as one or more of the variables that control it are changed continuously. Catastrophe theory is generally considered a branch of geometry because

www.britannica.com

Catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(See the section called potential functions of one active variable for pics)

 

[ding]

Natural selection is not linked to any time frame: high selection pressure = rapid speciation, low selection pressure = little or no speciation. It could that a very short time to create a new species, in the case of viruses for instance, or it could that millennia for creatures that live in stable environments.

What part of Darwin's belief in slight successive changes did you not understand?

 

[ding]

Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres (Yunis and Prakash 1982).


You're probably right.

Great. Would you call that a genetic mutation or slight successive changes?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It may not always be obvious why speciation occurs but it is usually obvious that it has:

Yes, speciation occurs. Because the alternative is that all species appeared in present form, and there is no support for that.

The results you'll notice are exactly the same, regardless of the mechanism.

Yes, so why is it so important for people like Hollie to pretend that it happens by Natural Selection, when there is no support for that?

I found no real fault in the positions of those who accept evolution as opposed to those that deny it.

Then you find no fault in my position, since I accept evolution.

I disagree with Darwinism.

I can't help but notice that this post could have been made as a response to almost any statement about evolution. You responded to almost nothing in my post, which I take to mean that you do not or cannot dispute it.

Let's ask the question that you do not ask of others:

Hey Hollie - Why do you care how speciation happened?

 

[alang1216]

What part of Darwin's belief in slight successive changes did you not understand?

I get it. I also get geologic time scales.

 

[alang1216]

Great. Would you call that a genetic mutation or slight successive changes?

Why can't it be both?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, speciation occurs. Because the alternative is that all species appeared in present form, and there is no support for that.

So what mechanism do you prefer to Natural Selection?

Yes, so why is it so important for people like Hollie to pretend that it happens by Natural Selection, when there is no support for that?

You'll have to ask Hollie what is important to Hollie. Me? I think there is plenty of support for it.

Then you find no fault in my position, since I accept evolution.

You accept evolution but don't know how it happens? Personally, I don't believe in the supernatural, aliens, or magic.

I disagree with Darwinism.

He made a lot of errors but his work was historic.

I can't help but notice that this post could have been made as a response to almost any statement about evolution. You responded to almost nothing in my post, which I take to mean that you do not or cannot dispute it.

Most of your post was your opinions which are as valid as anyone else's.

Let's ask the question that you do not ask of others:

Hey Hollie - Why do you care how speciation happened?

That is what is called science.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So what mechanism do you prefer to Natural Selection?

Any that there is evidence for, that is the point. Not to have an emotional attachment to an unsupported mechanism and insult others who do not. That's not science, that is religion.

You'll have to ask Hollie what is important to Hollie. Me? I think there is plenty of support for it.

I didn't realize that. Please post it.

You accept evolution but don't know how it happens? Personally, I don't believe in the supernatural, aliens, or magic.

Richard Dawkins believes in aliens, and he is a strong supporter of Darwinian evolution.

He made a lot of errors but his work was historic.

Both true statement. Same could be said for Karl Marx, whose work many regard as science also.

It isn't.

Most of your post was your opinions which are as valid as anyone else's.


That is what is called science.

Yoookay.

 

[scruffy]

Any that there is evidence for, that is the point. Not to have an emotional attachment to an unsupported mechanism and insult others who do not. That's not science, that is religion.

So you have no idea.

Richard Dawkins believes in aliens, and he is a strong supporter of Darwinian evolution.

Who cares?

Both true statement. Same could be said for Karl Marx, whose work many regard as science also.

No one but NO ONE calls Karl Marx a scientist.

It isn't.

Yoookay.

You're blathering.

Natural selection is defined by the interaction between the organism and it's niche. Even if the niche is man made or artificially supported.

This is not religion. You have yet to address even a single piece of evidence.

A bacterium will reproduce on a nutrient medium in the lab. However put an antibiotic on the petri dish, and the rate of reproduction slows dramatically. Because most of the bacteria die before they can reproduce.

The only ones that survive, are the ones that mutate into the new niche. The result is a colony of resistant bacteria, which can be defined as a new species.

In this case, you have just witnessed biological evolution through natural selection.

This experiment is repeatable and independently verifiable. It meets the scientific criteria.

You are simply willfully ignoring the mountains and mountains of evidence. Your opinion is therefore of no SCIENTIFIC value whatsoever.

 

[alang1216]

Any that there is evidence for, that is the point. Not to have an emotional attachment to an unsupported mechanism and insult others who do not. That's not science, that is religion.

I didn't realize that. Please post it.

Evolution generally takes lots of time but our use of antibiotics shows it can operate very fast.

Testing Natural Selection with Genetics
You can Google for more.

Richard Dawkins believes in aliens, and he is a strong supporter of Darwinian evolution.

So? Many devout theists believe in Darwinian evolution.

Both true statement. Same could be said for Karl Marx, whose work many regard as science also.

It isn't.

Social science maybe? Same could be said of every scientist, including Einstein.

 

[Hollie]

Hey Hollie - Why do you care how speciation happened?

The obvious answer is that speciation replenishes life on the planet.

I think everyone gets it. Your religionism causes you to reject science in favor of intervention by the gods. Yes, you can disagree with Darwinism in favor of religionism but your “feelings” about religionism and your version of gods aren’t relevant in the face of facts. The evidence for speciation is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. While you are free to deny those facts, I will point out that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

As is the case throughout this thread, you choose to deny the evidence presented to you in favor of, “nuh uh”. But all seriousness aside, “nuh uh” isn’t an argument. Evolutionary theory predicts that new anatomical structures are adapted and / or inherited from other structures and so similarity in those structures should reflect evolutionary history in addition to function. We see this frequently. Human hands have similarities to bat wings, whale flippers, primate hands, cat and dog paws, et. All have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

So. We’re still waithing for presentation of your “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”. “the gawds did it”.

OK. How?