Total Posts:221|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Natural Selection is Wrong (Pro-Evolution)

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

I'm saving this to use as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.

I have a theory that creationism is just a front for breweries and pharmaceutical looking to boost the sale of liquor and aspirin amongst biologists and university students. I can see no other reason for idiocy like this. And the formatting! It's a monstrosity through and through.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:24:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.

I have a theory that creationism is just a front for breweries and pharmaceutical looking to boost the sale of liquor and aspirin amongst biologists and university students. I can see no other reason for idiocy like this. And the formatting! It's a monstrosity through and through.

Who said anything about creationism?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:18:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

I'm saving this to use as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper.

I never said I agreed with the article in its entirety. And I agree the formatting is horrific. But you have to weed through the junk to find the diamond in the rough.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." ~ Robert Frost

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle

He brings up some good points. Evolution occurs before Natural Selection. Natural Selection is an extinction theory not an evolutionary theory. It directs evolution, but it does not drive it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:20:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:59:43 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:24:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.

I have a theory that creationism is just a front for breweries and pharmaceutical looking to boost the sale of liquor and aspirin amongst biologists and university students. I can see no other reason for idiocy like this. And the formatting! It's a monstrosity through and through.

Who said anything about creationism?

I've wasted enough time debating them to know when I'm reading one. In the end he attempts to debunk all of biology as a science because understanding it is outside of his mental caliber. This toxic slew of fervor, arrogance, and ignorance is pretty distinctive. There's a slight possibility that he's just a really ill-informed, really dedicated contrarian. But I'd put money on creationism being the root cause.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:18:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

I'm saving this to use as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper.

I never said I agreed with the article in its entirety. And I agree the formatting is horrific. But you have to weed through the junk to find the diamond in the rough.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." ~ Robert Frost

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle


He brings up some good points. Evolution occurs before Natural Selection. Natural Selection is an extinction theory not an evolutionary theory. It directs evolution, but it does not drive it.

Evolution doesn't occur before or after natural selection. It's the overarching effect of selective forces acting on allele frequencies. He has no idea what he's talking about. While natural selection could be considered an environmentally-driven winnowing theory, in no way is it an extinction theory. It deals with frequencies of alleles, not just the extinction of species. Natural selection is the interaction between genetics, organisms, and a changing environment. It's not a car going someplace, it's not driven or directed towards some ultimate conclusion. It just happens.

I'm more than happy to sift through the garbage to find the gold. But this is just garbage sprinkled with the occasional piece of dirty tinfoil.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:20:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:59:43 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:24:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.

I have a theory that creationism is just a front for breweries and pharmaceutical looking to boost the sale of liquor and aspirin amongst biologists and university students. I can see no other reason for idiocy like this. And the formatting! It's a monstrosity through and through.

Who said anything about creationism?

I've wasted enough time debating them to know when I'm reading one.
So you are assuming he is a creationist?

In the end he attempts to debunk all of biology as a science because understanding it is outside of his mental caliber. This toxic slew of fervor, arrogance, and ignorance is pretty distinctive. There's a slight possibility that he's just a really ill-informed, really dedicated contrarian. But I'd put money on creationism being the root cause.

I didn't read the whole article just one of the points he made. The point I was specifically referring to.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:33:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:29:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:20:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:59:43 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:24:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:15:57 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

I wonder what the point of citing his degrees is if none of them relate to the subject-matter. Degrees in literary and psycho-analytic studies? Great for writing a paper on Derridean deconstruction, not so much for a refutation of the natural selectinon mechanism.

I have a theory that creationism is just a front for breweries and pharmaceutical looking to boost the sale of liquor and aspirin amongst biologists and university students. I can see no other reason for idiocy like this. And the formatting! It's a monstrosity through and through.

Who said anything about creationism?

I've wasted enough time debating them to know when I'm reading one.
So you are assuming he is a creationist?

Yes, just like a assume that the man ranting on the street corner about the 'end being near' and the rest of us being 'left behind' is a Christian very much looking forward to the apocalypse.

In the end he attempts to debunk all of biology as a science because understanding it is outside of his mental caliber. This toxic slew of fervor, arrogance, and ignorance is pretty distinctive. There's a slight possibility that he's just a really ill-informed, really dedicated contrarian. But I'd put money on creationism being the root cause.

I didn't read the whole article just one of the points he made. The point I was specifically referring to.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:28:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:18:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

I'm saving this to use as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper.

I never said I agreed with the article in its entirety. And I agree the formatting is horrific. But you have to weed through the junk to find the diamond in the rough.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." ~ Robert Frost

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle


He brings up some good points. Evolution occurs before Natural Selection. Natural Selection is an extinction theory not an evolutionary theory. It directs evolution, but it does not drive it.

Evolution doesn't occur before or after natural selection. It's the overarching effect of selective forces acting on allele frequencies.
No its not. Evolution is the mutation of genes. Natural selection occurs post mutation in order to weed out the unfavorable traits (which is extinction not evolution).
He has no idea what he's talking about.
Again, I am not basing my views on this paper, I just pointed to this paper as an example. I could find another paper if you prefer.
http://www.newsmax.com...
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...

While natural selection could be considered an environmentally-driven winnowing theory, in no way is it an extinction theory. It deals with frequencies of alleles, not just the extinction of species. Natural selection is the interaction between genetics, organisms, and a changing environment. It's not a car going someplace, it's not driven or directed towards some ultimate conclusion. It just happens.

I'm more than happy to sift through the garbage to find the gold. But this is just garbage sprinkled with the occasional piece of dirty tinfoil.

If Natural Selection didn't occur evolution would still take place. This is proof enough that Darwin was wrong. The only thing natural selection does, is eliminate unfavorable mutations. Without natural selection there would be much more diversity.

An example of natural selection, would be breeding dogs. You can weed out the undesirable traits to create a new breed of dog. If you did not do this, the evolution of dog breeds would be much slower, and would produce a wider range of variations. All dog breeding does, is direct evolution, not drive it.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:53:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a gem, and the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

I quote verbatim (this is written in like 40 point font, mind you)

..."nonsence as you cant tell us what a species is
or
when you do ie different species cant interbreed you end in
contradiction thus
ie all this is meaningless nonsense"

This is literally worse writing than that of some 10 year olds I know.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:56:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:53:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is a gem, and the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

I quote verbatim (this is written in like 40 point font, mind you)

..."nonsence as you cant tell us what a species is
or
when you do ie different species cant interbreed you end in
contradiction thus
ie all this is meaningless nonsense"

This is literally worse writing than that of some 10 year olds I know.

What did you expect? He's an erotic poet, not a scientist.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 4:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK, I've obviously chosen a poor example. So I'm going to start a new thread.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:00:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

Me too.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:58:53 PM, DanT wrote:
OK, I've obviously chosen a poor example. So I'm going to start a new thread.

Even if you didn't read the darn thing, the random font changes thrown in with random color highlights and half-page urls should have given it away. Even the title is extremely awkward. No excuse.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:13:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:02:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:58:53 PM, DanT wrote:
OK, I've obviously chosen a poor example. So I'm going to start a new thread.


Even if you didn't read the darn thing, the random font changes thrown in with random color highlights and half-page urls should have given it away. Even the title is extremely awkward. No excuse.

I didn't say I didn't read it. I said I read some of it, but not all of it. I was citing that article primarily regarding the the section that reads;
"NS can't as the generation of new species/genes is not part of its remit as it only deals with traits/genes already present Natural selection does not generate new genes/species. Natural selction adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present. A new species has completely new traits/genes which were not in an antecedent so the antecedemt species could not have passed them on NS is all about the transmission of already aquired traits/genes if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits/genes that are not present in the antecendent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi DanT, I haven't spent large amounts of time debating evolution yet, so perhaps I'm not quite so cynical as the others. If you want to discuss, I'll listen and respond appropriately.

At 6/23/2013 4:51:29 PM, DanT wrote:
No its not. Evolution is the mutation of genes. Natural selection occurs post mutation in order to weed out the unfavorable traits (which is extinction not evolution).
I don't believe this is the case. My understanding is that Evolution is the gradual change in genetic code of living organisms due to mutation events and selection pressure. It requires both mutation and competition. Mutation is mutation, natural selection is just another name for competition and Evolution is the result of the combination of these two processes.

Again, I am not basing my views on this paper, I just pointed to this paper as an example. I could find another paper if you prefer.
http://www.newsmax.com...
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...
I'd rather not deal with sources at this point as it will just devolve into a 'who's source is more reliable/actually knows what they are talking about' fight. Let's get our definitions straight and our arguments first before we start trying to back them up.

If Natural Selection didn't occur evolution would still take place. This is proof enough that Darwin was wrong. The only thing natural selection does, is eliminate unfavorable mutations. Without natural selection there would be much more diversity.
How would you go about performing an experiment to demonstrate this? You would have to have room to keep alive every single organisms and some way to ensure they all have exactly the same number of children. Competition creeps in everywhere. If you define evolution as mutation then yes, this is correct. But evolution is not normally defined as mutation but rather as the combination of mutation and competition processes that lead to shift in the genetic makeup of an entire population (to a place that is more effective or more fit).

An example of natural selection, would be breeding dogs. You can weed out the undesirable traits to create a new breed of dog. If you did not do this, the evolution of dog breeds would be much slower, and would produce a wider range of variations. All dog breeding does, is direct evolution, not drive it.
Breeding of dogs would not normally be considered 'natural' selection. It is an artificial form of selection where the fitness function is determined by us (which traits we want to keep) rather than by the environment. I would also note that by your definition of evolution as mutation your statement that evolution would be slower is no longer coherent with your position since the mutation of genes would occur at exactly the same rate (barring the use of radiation to induce mutations or something). You seem to use evolution to refer to both mutation and genetic shift. Please pick one and give the other one another name so we can move forward.

I am willing to concede that 'I' have not seen sufficient evidence to claim that evolution does result in speciation. This however, should not be seen as a reflection on whether it can as this is mostly due to me not caring enough to go read all the relevant research material. Also, plenty of other people that I trust have, and so I am tempted to believe their conclusions. So by all means, clarify your points and set the definitions and we can go from there. If I have made any mistakes in interpreting your comments, please let me know.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:13:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:02:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2013 4:58:53 PM, DanT wrote:
OK, I've obviously chosen a poor example. So I'm going to start a new thread.


Even if you didn't read the darn thing, the random font changes thrown in with random color highlights and half-page urls should have given it away. Even the title is extremely awkward. No excuse.

I didn't say I didn't read it. I said I read some of it, but not all of it. I was citing that article primarily regarding the the section that reads;
"NS can't as the generation of new species/genes is not part of its remit as it only deals with traits/genes already present Natural selection does not generate new genes/species. Natural selction adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present. A new species has completely new traits/genes which were not in an antecedent so the antecedemt species could not have passed them on NS is all about the transmission of already aquired traits/genes if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits/genes that are not present in the antecendent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation."

That's an elementary misconception. Are you playing devil's advocate or something? I sure hope so...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:23:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:17:49 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Hi DanT, I haven't spent large amounts of time debating evolution yet, so perhaps I'm not quite so cynical as the others. If you want to discuss, I'll listen and respond appropriately.
My response will be posted here
http://www.debate.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:15:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 4:18:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 3:09:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Holy sh!t, I knew that this paper would be horrible when I saw all of the BA degrees that the author held, but CITING WIKIPEDIA!?

Anyway, the entire thing is a straw-man which mischaracterizes speciation and references the idea of objectively good or bad genetic traits. Genes are selected for by the environment, and are not objectively good or bad. Speciation doesn't happen in any distinct manner; species are a made-up concept and changes are gradual and not clear-cut, with hybridization, polyploidy, and other factors playing a large role. Then there's his whole ridiculous argument about how, because biology doesn't conform to how he expected it to work after his clearly mediocre education, IT'S ALL NONSENSE! RAWR! This is just painful to read. Gould didn't challenge natural selection, he challenged phyletic gradualism. Ugh. I need a drink.

I'm saving this to use as an example of how NOT to write a scientific paper.

I never said I agreed with the article in its entirety. And I agree the formatting is horrific. But you have to weed through the junk to find the diamond in the rough.

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." ~ Robert Frost

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle


He brings up some good points. Evolution occurs before Natural Selection. Natural Selection is an extinction theory not an evolutionary theory. It directs evolution, but it does not drive it.

I'm totally with you on this! What the other guys are doing is classic ad-hominem, it's constant with amateur evolutionist (and many semi-professionals like Dawkins), and it's pathetic.
This space for rent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Aren't mutations the creation of the rock and natural/sexual selection the chisel which makes the sculpture?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:06:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:26:43 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Aren't mutations the creation of the rock and natural/sexual selection the chisel which makes the sculpture?

The point in one of the articles, I forget which, is that you have to think of selection as being more like the art buyer rather than the chisel. In other words, selection cannot create a nose or mouth, mutation must create everything. Selection either buys the sculpture or not. And the problem, to me, is that selection must buy a zillion unfinished sculptures, somehow knowing what they're going to turn out to be.
This space for rent.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM, DanT wrote:
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.

You know you're in trouble when you cite a psychoanalyst for a biology paper.

Unsurprisingly, it COMPLETELY ignores the progress we've made in understanding mutation over the past few decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:53:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM, DanT wrote:
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.

You know you're in trouble when you cite a psychoanalyst for a biology paper.

Unsurprisingly, it COMPLETELY ignores the progress we've made in understanding mutation over the past few decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

or when it looks like it's been vandalized.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:53:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM, DanT wrote:
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.

You know you're in trouble when you cite a psychoanalyst for a biology paper.

And what I love - even when I point out the incessant ad hominem of amateur evolutionists, it doesn't let up, not for a moment. Maybe the psychology of evolution is the interesting thing, eh, since the science ain't worth a warm bucket of spit.
This space for rent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:42:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:53:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM, DanT wrote:
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.

You know you're in trouble when you cite a psychoanalyst for a biology paper.

And what I love - even when I point out the incessant ad hominem of amateur evolutionists, it doesn't let up, not for a moment. Maybe the psychology of evolution is the interesting thing, eh, since the science ain't worth a warm bucket of spit.

That's a disturbing image. Why.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 5:49:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 2:53:59 PM, DanT wrote:
This article covers some concerns I had with Darwinism. They specifically mention my biggest concern; the fact that natural selection occurs after mutation.
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...
I would like to point out that Natural Selection aka Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is simply a sub-theory. One can be against Darwinism but still believe in Evolution.

If we take a look with an open mind at the whole of life as it appears to us today, including the evidence contained in the fossil record, we can apprehend some kind of coherent behavior or underlying principles over the large-scale dimensions that are required by the study of evolution. What Darwin did was allow the scientific community to see the facts in a new context and his view can certainly be utilized to extrapolate forward, all we really have to do is see things as they really are.

You merely need to take an honest look and it becomes quite obvious that without something else, without some other basic principle standing alongside of it, the model Darwinism provides us with only statistical impossibilities. The outward forms, the inherent direction of life and its emergent properties just can"t be fit to a reductionist model based on completely random mutations. The fossil record simply does not show the gradual change that Darwin hoped for.

When we take an honest look it becomes self-evident that the evolution of life shows itself to involve a creative force rather than the adaptive force represented by Darwinism"s model. We see that life quite obviously operates by profusion: it reveals itself to be self-transcendent, constantly reaching out beyond the systems boundaries. Even our physical models of science revealed the universe to be an unbroken whole and in the end, physics warned us against the limitations of a reductionist approach, especially if it is applied to life.

With a comprehensive view of life we can perceive laws that are non-random laws. Population genetics predicts stasis. The fossil record shows static forms interrupted by extinction and it makes it clear that small changes don"t accumulate. Darwin"s unifying theory of biology is a theory of stability, it tells us nothing about the generation of form. When we look at these forms we see basic shapes, patterns and possibilities repeating themselves again and again in a phenomenon called "parallel evolution". We find "Homologous organs" which are similar structures spanning different classes of organisms. Similarities of structure that evolved independently in unrelated classes of life and that cannot be explained by mere coincidence.

We find marsupials evolving in Australia, which were completely isolated from the placental animals evolving elsewhere, and it is unsettling that they are so similar, in fact, they are simply too similar, its almost creepy. When the continental plates drifted apart sometime during the Cretaceous period a small mammal resembling a shrew became completely isolated in Australia from the rest of its population. Millions of years later this mammal had evolved into wolves, squirrels, cats, mice, anteaters, ground hogs, and moles both in Australia and elsewhere. A common ancestor adapting to similar conditions in order to occupy comparable habitats can"t explain the profound similarities, not with only a mechanism of chance mutation at work. .

When we take an honest look, there appear to be underlying patterns and forms in nature, predetermined genetic pathways. Rather than primary instruction sets, genes are revealed to be modifying influences selecting from a limited number of possible solutions intrinsic in life forms. Life shows itself to be based on self-organizing principles that adhere to underlying patterns of form. It is not just the same gene complex creating wolves in both Australia and elsewhere after millions of years but also different genes producing homologous organs as they follow underlying laws of form. Arms, legs, wings, and flippers have evolved in completely dissimilar creatures for entirely different purposes yet they have developed profoundly similar designs. Science has obviously ignored some basic principle underlying the whole process.

Our intuition of wholeness certainly reflects a biological truth, organisms are outward manifestations of inner principles that cannot be explained by the combination of genetic mutation and natural selection only. Natural selection does occur, it is only wrong if you consider it to be completely explanatory without further study, it is just inadequate by itself. So natural selection isn"t wrong, it"s thinking that it provides the whole story that is wrong.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater