What's so hard about evolution?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Phantom423
BTW, no one took me up on my offer to prove that any article at ICR.org is bogus. The offer remains open.

Ummm . . . I believe it was asked of you to actually post an article, so that it may be "critiqued". However, you simply ignored that to say . . . "See, no one took me up on my offer". A little disingenuous, IMO.

This is exactly what I said:

"Ken Hamm is perpetrating a fraud - he's organized a cult of disinformation to suck people in. Show me any article from his website and I'll prove that it's bogus. " No one asked me to post an article. Please show me the post where I was asked to post an article to be "critiqued".

Is it Friday yet?

Sorry Phantom . . . I didn't go back to verify and switched up the names of said challenge, in my head. (Egg on face for responding to you as "Servant of the Lamb" . . . who you issued challenge to.)

Carry on . . .
Nothing to see here . . .

edit on 5/28/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/28/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

No problem.

originally posted by: Astyanax

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
You're playing word games and debating tricks... I invite you to try with genuine good will to understand and make reasonable reply. At the moment you are communicating nothing but your own distress.

You posted a mudskipper as though it proves that animals change kinds. I am asking you to show me what it was before because I cannot find it.

That is not why I posted it. I posted it to show Chr0naut that a fish with leg-like fins can survive and reproduce successfully.

If you are as curious about evolution as you make out, why don't you study it honestly, instead of letting yourself be misinformed about it by people who hate and fear it? Or are you the same as they? And if you are, why should I waste my time explaining anything to you? Why should I continue to beat you up in an argument you have already lost and closed your mind to?

Lol beat me up? I dont think you have done anything of the sort . I have studied it open and honest. Micro-evolution is has been pretty much proven as fact, however as for Macro-evolution I am sorry but there is no evidence that extrapolating Micro-evolution will bring about the kind of changes mentioned in Macro-evolution. When you find solid fossil record evidence you let me know, but until then you have nothing defending your supposed argument .

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

We are talking about DNA, not acids and salts. You have specific nucleotide bases that pair up, and their is no chemical means for them to do so.

Really? You just proved you have no idea what your talking about, do you even know what DNA is? Here's a hint..It's a chemical! Specifically, Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Deoxyribonucleic acid is the molecule that encodes the genetic instructions.

Sorry, there is no pixie dust in the mix!

I know exactly what the chemicals are, but you dont seem aware of the fact that chemically Adenine can bind with any of the other three and Thymine can bind with any of the others.. and so on ...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know exactly what the chemicals are, but you dont seem aware of the fact that chemically Adenine can bind with any of the other three and Thymine can bind with any of the others.. and so on ...

Hydrogen bonding is the chemical interaction that underlies the base-pairing rules. Now If the sugar-phosphate backbone were on the outside of the molecule, the bases adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine would have to bond to each other in some way. The question is, are you trying to say there is another way, like artificial or somthing? I guess I really don't understand your post. What it is it I'm not aware of?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know exactly what the chemicals are, but you dont seem aware of the fact that chemically Adenine can bind with any of the other three and Thymine can bind with any of the others.. and so on ...

Hydrogen bonding is the chemical interaction that underlies the base-pairing rules. Now If the sugar-phosphate backbone were on the outside of the molecule, the bases adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine would have to bond to each other in some way. The question is, are you trying to say there is another way, like artificial or somthing? I guess I really don't understand your post. What it is it I'm not aware of?

I certainly can't speak for the Lamb or the Servant, but I believe he/she is implying a version of the Goldilocks principal. The fact that they are able to bond implies supernatural means, as opposed to say cytosine only showing reaction to adenine and guanine, but not thymine. And if they all can form bonds between, there must be a guiding force to make sure transcription and translation isn't haphazard.

My guess . . .

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I know exactly what the chemicals are, but you dont seem aware of the fact that chemically Adenine can bind with any of the other three and Thymine can bind with any of the others.. and so on ...

Hydrogen bonding is the chemical interaction that underlies the base-pairing rules. Now If the sugar-phosphate backbone were on the outside of the molecule, the bases adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine would have to bond to each other in some way. The question is, are you trying to say there is another way, like artificial or somthing? I guess I really don't understand your post. What it is it I'm not aware of?

I certainly can't speak for the Lamb or the Servant, but I believe he/she is implying a version of the Goldilocks principal. The fact that they are able to bond implies supernatural means, as opposed to say cytosine only showing reaction to adenine and guanine, but not thymine. And if they all can form bonds between, there must be a guiding force to make sure transcription and translation isn't haphazard.

My guess . . .

I get it... Like when you throw a match to gasoline, "BOOM" the magic happens.

Wow, we have real chemist here.

a reply to: flyingfish

Yeah . . . something like that. I've always preferred a pound of sodium in a 15000 gallon swimming pool, but . . . same thing.

If I am right about his reasoning, it's only because I've heard that claim before. At a school board meeting about curriculum, if you can believe it.

a reply to: solomons path

I've always preferred a pound of sodium in a 15000 gallon swimming pool, but . . .

Now that's just insanity, don't be giving these kids any ideas..Lol.

a reply to: Astyanax; Part 1

Excuse the delay... work has been keeping me rather busy..

Your opening comments are going to require some extra attention and a rather lengthy reply to set the record straight...

by Astyanax
The theory of selection among variants by natural causes was precisely Darwin's contribution to history.

No one is denying that fact (even though 24 naturalists, including his grandfather, had conceived an idea of evolution before him). But it should be understood that Darwin was a Deist at the time of his famous work. That is, he believed that some higher intelligence had created the universe and designed the natural laws by which all of nature arose and abided by. A Deistic view essentially removed God from the day to day meddling of life's normal activities, but still acknowledged a Creator of the Universe. So while not of the Christian variety, all the hallmarks were there...

by Astyanax
To say that Darwin substituted natural selection for God is laughable.

You have that backwards. I understand your incredulity Astyanax, but why is it laughable? You have to remember it was the mid to late 19th century, during the height of the Victorian Era, when intelligent design was all the rage. The debates amongst Victorians weren't about if God designed nature, but more about the manner and context in which He did. To many, Darwin had just discovered a new law of nature designed by God.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was almost literally pulled out from under the creationist rug. In fact quite a number of the scientists (some of whom were Darwins closest confidants) during that time were believers in a divine Creator (with a capital C) of some sort. Many of these scientists, quite distinguished and well respected I might add, fully embraced a teleological view of the natural world and attributed God to all the goodness and beauty that surrounded them, including the natural laws that gave rise to it all.

Darwin, believe it or not, was actually a proponent of this worldview during the earlier parts of his life when he was at Cambridge studying to become a clergyman. He found great pleasure in studying works such as "Natural Theology", which was written in 1802 by William Paley, a well known creationist of the time. Paley was the first to use the analogy of the "Watchmaker" in an effort to prove the logic (as he saw it) of ID. As you know, that passage (and similar versions) has become one of the most oft cited and referred to arguments in the evolution vs creationism debate. Darwin himself noted how influential Paley's work was for him. ( Did Dawkins know this!?)

However, it wasn't before too long, as Darwin started to develop his theory, when he realized that what he was seeing in nature didn't quite fit the view of a world created by an all benevolent God. He often wondered and could not reconcile why a loving God would create so much of the evil and pain found in nature as a result of the necessary competition for survival. It's well known and documented that Darwin struggled with his beliefs in this regard, and I think it was this realization that prompted him to distance himself from the notion that God was creator and director of life. He completely ditched his Christian beliefs in favor of a more Deistic worldview embraced by his close friend and mentor Charles Lyell. Interestingly enough, as I mentioned before, Darwin ascribed to these views during the writing and publication of "Origin".

If you read through historian accounts of Darwin and even his own words, you'll quickly understand why it's not so laughable nor inconceivable to associate him with creationist views of some sort. He's been accused of adhering to Atheistic beliefs which is actually completely erroneous. Funny enough it's the Creationists who accuse him of this, although I don't doubt there have been many a scientist who were quite okay to embrace that notion of him. It's known that Darwin referred to himself as an agnostic sometime after the term was first coined by Huxley. But that's as far as he went as far as I can tell. Darwin it seems, left the door open... Regardless, you won't find any documents written by him or others that would show he fully disavowed himself from an almighty Creator.

Of course Darwin had no idea about genetics so naturally he couldn't refer to molecular mutations as a cause for evolution. But to his credit, he had an intuition that there was something else driving this process of "transmutation" and this is why, I think, had was compelled to come up with the only possible explanation (given the current knowledge at his disposal) for what he was seeing--- "Natural Selection". But what we've been learning more and more thanks to technology is that the true mechanisms of evolution, if they are to be called that, are to be found at the molecular level. In other words, life is driving its own evolution.

by Astyanax
Show me anything, written by any author prior to 1859, which suggests that God causes plants and animals to evolve their forms through competition among variants, and I will grant your point. But there is no such document.

Is this suggestive enough?

There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to use, imply the preference of intelligence and mind.
— William Paley, 1802
Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of The Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature

FROM the misconception of the ignorant or superstitious, it has been thought somewhat profane to speak in favour of spontaneous vital production, as if it contradicted holy writ; which says, that God created animals and vegetables. They do not recollect that God created all things which exist, and that these have been from the beginning in a perpetual state of improvement; which appears from the globe itself, as well as from the animals and vegetables, which possess it. And lastly, that there is more dignity in our idea of the supreme author of all things, when we conceive him to be the cause of causes, than the cause simply of events, which we see; if there can be any difference in infinity of power!
- Erasmus Darwin, 1803
The Temple of Nature Additional Note I: Spontaneous Vitality of Microscopic Animals

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved
- Charles Darwin,
On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition

I will have to end this part here. But will address the rest of your post at a later time.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Darwin himself noted how influential Paley's work was for him. (Did Dawkins know this!?)

Yes. See The Blind Watchmaker.

As to your quotes: neither those from Paley or Erasmus Darwin suggests that God causes plants and animals to evolve their forms through competition among variants. As for the quote from Origin, it was published in 1859. That's why I mentioned that particular date earlier.

I will have to end this part here. But will address the rest of your post at a later time.

Unless you are going to provide specific answers to the questions I asked earlier, please don't trouble.

I posted this thread somewhat inebriated( prompted by Randy V's total misunderstanding of basic systems)! But, after this many days, was too embarrassed to respond. Because it turned (unsurprisingly) into a truthful discussion between rational people vs Creationists.



My point, quite simply, was that biological reproduction was fabulously accurate, but not perfect. Those imperfections have two consequences... death (if the copying process was that flawed) or evolution. Evolution is the only consequence of living. If you believe that God started the evolutionary processes, fine... but they *do* exist. To deny them is paramount to denying the obvious truth... What would your god think of you if you denied the obvious?

a reply to: Astyanax

As to your quotes: neither those from Paley or Erasmus Darwin suggests that God causes plants and animals to evolve their forms through competition among variants.

Of course you would say that! I'm not even sure why I bothered to dignify your initial statement with a response. It's nothing but an attempt to erect a straw man. Pre-Origin "evolutionist lingo" varied amongst those who attempted to explain the variation of species. This fell under the term "transmutation" amongst others. What you're asking for wasn't necessarily an idea developed in those exact terms. But the general idea was the same- except most scientists invoked God at some point in the process, either at the beginning or all the way down to the details... This was the prevailing mindset back then, what is it that you're not getting?...
Here:

Louis Agassiz saw the divine plan of God everywhere in nature and even referred to species as the "thoughts of God" and had this to say in his Essay on Classification published in 1851:

....the phenomena of animal life correspond to one another, whether we compare their rank as determined by structural complication with the phases of their growth, or with their succession in past geological ages; whether we compare this succession with their relative growth, or all these different relations with each other and with the geographical distribution of animals upon the earth. The same series everywhere!

The combination in time and space of all these thoughtful conceptions exhibits not only thought, it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, greatness, prescience, omniscience, providence. In one word, all these facts in their natural connection proclaim aloud the One God, whom man may know, adore, and love; and Natural History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe ….

Asa Gray, a close friend of Darwin, said this in his book First Lessons in Botany and Vegetable Physiology published in 1857:

Species. All the descendants from the same stock therefore compose one species. And it was from our observing that the several sorts of plants or animals steadily reproduce themselves, -- or, in other words, keep up a succession of similar individuals, -- that the idea of species originated. So we are led to conclude that the Creator established a definite number of 
species at the beginning, which have continued by propagation, each after its kind.

You asked for suggestions.. Read up on the development of evolutionary theory and you will quickly learn how pervasive the notion of a Creator was, and just how much of the discourse was dominated by it. Darwin's theory was a carefully engineered and crafted product born of that discourse. He tried very hard to deliver his theory in a manner that could satisfy both the theist and atheist alike...

As for the quote from Origin, it was published in 1859. That's why I mentioned that particular date earlier.

More straw-manning. You completely missed the point. Even after the first 5 editions of Origin, Darwin still invoked a Creator at the beginning. Why hadn't he just completely abandoned the notion of an almighty Power if he had been so sure of his theory?

a reply to: Astyanax; part 2

Why does life do that? 'Life doing what it does' is a meaningless answer, no better than 'God did it'.

Why does life evolve? You're asking a question about life in general, which as of yet we have no working theory. We don't know why life exists, let alone why it evolves. So we would have to step into the arena of speculation. All we know is that it does exist, and it does evolve. Life doing what it does is simply that. I can go into all the things that life does specifically, but that would be pointless. What we can say about life is what natural selection is needlessly taking credit for... producing varieties of forms based on mutations. Those forms adapt to environments, some of which live on and others die out. One thing appears certain- more forms have found ways to survive based on intelligence. But we now feel the need to invoke a process of "natural selection" to sieve through the variants. But there is literally no mechanism doing that. When you break down the theory we wind up just referring back to components of life.

How does Life cause variation to emerge? Does it employ some mechanism of your own invention, or will random mutation caused by the usual agents do? How does your hypothesis differ from standard evolutionary theory?

Not of my own invention, no. Life's own invention of genetic mutation will suffice. It differs in that it places the main thrust of evolution in the hands of life, and not with some imaginary Selector.

How are new traits diffused through a population? Does Life employ the same commonly-understood gene transport mechanisms to do that, or do you favour some other process, different from those we discussed earlier? How does your hypothesis explain how variation is propagated? How does it differ, in this sense, from standard evolutionary theory?

These process are all LIFE PROCESSES. When you describe them, you are only describing the functions of life. I'm not inventing a new theory, I'm only trying to show that it should be unified under a theory of life, not a separate one for evolution. Evolution is made out to be some separate mechanism acting on life. That is a misconception. Evolution is life acting on itself, reacting to the changes within itself and the environment.

And, crucially, how does Life, doing what it does, select among variant forms? It is plain to see that selection occurs, for otherwise the incidence of genetic diseases and deformities would be far higher than it is. Does Life use the same agents as natural selection — disease, predators, sexual competition, geophysical processes, etc — to do the weeding, or does it employ some other means? Can you show evidence for some other mechanism?

Did you know that Natural Selection was inspired by Artificial Selection?

And if you cannot, how does 'life doing what it does' differ from the theory of evolution by natural selection?

Very simply- I'm attributing the whole of evolution to life itself. Evolution is a life process driven by mutations. Natural Selection is nothing but a metaphor. What is the need to invoke an invisible selector between the variants? Isn't it the logic of life to adapt and endure? Why do we have to give credit to something else that is completely imaginary.

By this definition, a simple thermostat exhibits basic cognition, and any feedback loop or homeostatic system is intelligent.

Nice try, but no, just no....
Do thermostats engage in sexual or asexual reproduction? Do they think or metabolise? or produce novel information?

How did organisms acquire the ability to communicate, to solve problems, to think?

Right as if you can explain how natural selection gives rise to these functions without having to rely on other real mechanisms to the heavy lifting.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
But we now feel the need to invoke a process of "natural selection" to sieve through the variants. But there is literally no mechanism doing that. When you break down the theory we wind up just referring back to components of life.

What do you mean by there is literally no mechanism and that we feel the need to invoke natural selection? Environmental change doesn't count as a mechanism?

These process are all LIFE PROCESSES. When you describe them, you are only describing the functions of life. I'm not inventing a new theory, I'm only trying to show that it should be unified under a theory of life, not a separate one for evolution. Evolution is made out to be some separate mechanism acting on life. That is a misconception. Evolution is life acting on itself, reacting to the changes within itself and the environment.

Why should there be a unified theory, when we barely know anything about abiogenesis? Please explain to me how genetic mutations caused abiogenesis? The truth is they did not and evolution only applies to life that is already here. Maybe one day we'll understand abiogenesis better and incorporate it into a bigger theory of all life, but to suggest that they are one in the same would be a big mistake. There's actually no evidence anywhere that suggests that evolution is life reacting to changes in the environment. Genetic mutations happen at conception, it isn't an environmental reaction.

Very simply- I'm attributing the whole of evolution to life itself. Evolution is a life process driven by mutations. Natural Selection is nothing but a metaphor. What is the need to invoke an invisible selector between the variants? Isn't it the logic of life to adapt and endure? Why do we have to give credit to something else that is completely imaginary.

Natural selection is a proven fact. There is no invisible selector, organisms die when the environment changes and they can't adapt. If you are going to argue that environmental change doesn't exist, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Right as if you can explain how natural selection gives rise to these functions without having to rely on other real mechanisms to the heavy lifting.

genetic mutations + natural selection = evolution. What other mechanisms are you talking about?

More straw-manning. You completely missed the point. Even after the first 5 editions of Origin, Darwin still invoked a Creator at the beginning. Why hadn't he just completely abandoned the notion of an almighty Power if he had been so sure of his theory?

Because evolution doesn't negate a creator. I'm not sure why folks think it does. We're talking about the 1850s here. Darwin probably just didn't want religious folks as enemies while doing his scientific research.

a reply to: Barcs

What do you mean by there is literally no mechanism and that we feel the need to invoke natural selection? Environmental change doesn't count as a mechanism?

I mean that there is LITERALLY no mechanism that is LITERALLY selecting the most fit organisms. I already acknowledged in an earlier post that the environment ( with regards to climate change, volcanic eruption, meteor, et al) puts pressures on life to adapt. But how does the environment literally "select" the best fit species? What is doing the selecting?

Why should there be a unified theory, when we barely know anything about abiogenesis? Please explain to me how genetic mutations caused abiogenesis? The truth is they did not and evolution only applies to life that is already here. Maybe one day we'll understand abiogenesis better and incorporate it into a bigger theory of all life, but to suggest that they are one in the same would be a big mistake. There's actually no evidence anywhere that suggests that evolution is life reacting to changes in the environment.

Why shouldn't there be a unified theory of life? You're right we don't know how it started and no where did I suggest that mutations caused abiogenesis. My issue is that Natural Selection is given all the credit from the "soup" to now. And I'm sorry I just don't agree. This is not invoking God, which I know is a convenient out for you and others. This is to say that natural selection was born out of the need to fill in for what God was believed to be the causing agent of. NS is spoken of as a cause for evolution and there is no "it" doing any selecting. You want to say the environment is selecting the most fit as if it's someone picking out a pair of jeans.

Adaptation is life reacting to the environment. Adaptation is a big part of evolution is it not?

Genetic mutations happen at conception, it isn't an environmental reaction.

Are you saying that mutations can not be caused by changes to the outside environment? That genomes do not interact with the environment to cause variation in traits? I hope that's not what you're saying.

Natural selection is a proven fact. There is no invisible selector, organisms die when the environment changes and they can't adapt. If you are going to argue that environmental change doesn't exist, you are barking up the wrong tree.

The better adapted or "fit" organism lives on, given the current environment it finds itself in. That is it. It was not "selected" to live on. What- so just because life forms produce varieties of itself of which only a few of those varieties happen to make it for whatever reason, suddenly they were "selected" by the environment? We're assigning a power of causation to NS when there is no need for it. We're told that it "operates" on heritable traits. And that it's "blind". It's none of those things because it doesn't exist. It's a made up idea to fill the gap that was left by God.

genetic mutations + natural selection = evolution. What other mechanisms are you talking about?

Define the term natural selection in that equation. What you get is genetic mutations+(adaptation - unfit organism) = evolution.

Life is the ultimate arbitrator in all of this.

Because evolution doesn't negate a creator. I'm not sure why folks think it does. We're talking about the 1850s here. Darwin probably just didn't want religious folks as enemies while doing his scientific research.

I'm sorry but that is BS Barcs. Evolution has always been used as a means to justify the labeling of those who disagree with this herd mentality as creationists. You my friend are guilty of it too. You point to your pillar of evolution and say "See, it's there, in stone, and it's a fact. So you're wrong, and a creationist!".

This the reason why it's important to understand how the theory was conceived, and the times that it came to be in. Darwin didn't want to piss off all the religious folk? He was already making enemies with his theory. So why back off? Maybe because deep down he had always held onto the creationist belief he had endeared himself too in his youth. And this theory of NS was a way to give both the believers and non-believers something to chew on.

a reply to: Barcs

Almost forgot about this one...

The mutation could go completely unnoticed for generations, and then bang. The environment shifts and only that one genetic line survives while the other 90% die out.

Nest building seems to be quite essential to the survival of all species who employ it. When you say "unnoticed" do you mean "unexpressed"? If so wouldn't the "unnoticing" of such an essential behavior have done away with the species?

Something like building a nest, probably saved the species at one point.

Not just one species. Multiple species. The same mutation had to occur in all of them for the behavior to be realized. Then, from what it sounds like, the same behavioral trait then mutated itself continually to allow for later generations to know how to build more complex nests in safer spots, and to also know how to find them.

And again, it's not something as simple as nest building. It's a creature's ability to use it's intellect to protect itself. It's logical for a creature to want to build a protective home or nest.

Nest building is not a simple feat. There are a lot of variables that come into play which must all be instinctually driven. As far as timing, placement, structure shape, size, materials, etc... Are these aspects the result of separate mutations?

When you say that a bird uses it's intellect and logic to construct a nest (which Im okay with), how is this then not suggesting that at some point nest building behavior was learned and then passed on?

Logic and intellect are certainly key to life surviving....

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

What do you mean by there is literally no mechanism and that we feel the need to invoke natural selection? Environmental change doesn't count as a mechanism?

I mean that there is LITERALLY no mechanism that is LITERALLY selecting the most fit organisms. I already acknowledged in an earlier post that the environment ( with regards to climate change, volcanic eruption, meteor, et al) puts pressures on life to adapt. But how does the environment literally "select" the best fit species? What is doing the selecting?

You mean consciously selecting, not literally. No, natural selection is not a conscious process. It is the introduction of a new predator, a sudden change in a certain environment, an extinction level event, over population of a certain creature in a region, etc etc. It certainly is not a conscious entity or force that picks and chooses and in fact, much of it is simply good luck with mutations over time that leads to one species (or sub species) surviving over another when faced with change.

Why shouldn't there be a unified theory of life? You're right we don't know how it started and no where did I suggest that mutations caused abiogenesis. My issue is that Natural Selection is given all the credit from the "soup" to now. And I'm sorry I just don't agree. This is not invoking God, which I know is a convenient out for you and others. This is to say that natural selection was born out of the need to fill in for what God was believed to be the causing agent of. NS is spoken of as a cause for evolution and there is no "it" doing any selecting. You want to say the environment is selecting the most fit as if it's someone picking out a pair of jeans.

So it seems your issue is more with the terminology, than anything else. NS is not THE cause of evolution. It is the mechanism that leads to changes over time. THE cause of evolution is genetic mutations, natural selection just thins down the populations to the ones with better traits for which environment they are currently in. This can change. It seems like you are over complicating what natural selection is. It's just a name for environmental changes that kill off populations of species.

Adaptation is life reacting to the environment. Adaptation is a big part of evolution is it not?

There are 2 versions of adaptation. One is a certain individually adapting to an environment on the fly. For example, nuclear winter comes and humans have to alter their life style to survive within their own lifetimes. The other version is long term adaption which is essentially another term for evolution. Long term adaptation is controlled directly by natural selection.

Are you saying that mutations can not be caused by changes to the outside environment? That genomes do not interact with the environment to cause variation in traits? I hope that's not what you're saying.

They can be, but the change happens at conception, and a large portion of it is random. It doesn't actually adapt to the environment by causing a mutation to change the genetic code. The mutations happen long before the environmental changes. They are not directly related, as you suggested the mutations are reacting to the environmental changes.

The better adapted or "fit" organism lives on, given the current environment it finds itself in. That is it. It was not "selected" to live on. What- so just because life forms produce varieties of itself of which only a few of those varieties happen to make it for whatever reason, suddenly they were "selected" by the environment? We're assigning a power of causation to NS when there is no need for it. We're told that it "operates" on heritable traits. And that it's "blind". It's none of those things because it doesn't exist. It's a made up idea to fill the gap that was left by God.

You are just fighting the terminology again. I never said anything was consciously selected. The environmental change is what "selects" the species. "Better adapted" or "fit" is a completely relative term because you can be the best adapted species in the world, but the second that environment changes you could become the least fit and least adapted. You are invoking a conscious choice in natural selection, while there isn't one. Natural selection is just the term used to define an environmental change. You added this to natural selection, not the evolutionary biologists. Nature selects.

I'm sorry but that is BS Barcs. Evolution has always been used as a means to justify the labeling of those who disagree with this herd mentality as creationists. You my friend are guilty of it too. You point to your pillar of evolution and say "See, it's there, in stone, and it's a fact. So you're wrong, and a creationist!".

I've never used an argument like that. I don't really care about god or what people say proves god or proves god wrong. Those are things we can't possibly know. I care about the science. Evolution is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life. This is something we DO know. The reason people keep mentioning creationists and making fun of them is because 99% of the posts in this section against evolution are creationists that don't understand the basics of the theory. I don't care if it's a creationist, a naturalist, or an independent free thinker, if you speak out against evolution without first learning the fundamentals, you are in the wrong. I'm not talking about you specifically, but the justifications some people use to preach against evolution are laughably absurd. People will leave creationists alone if they stop attacking evolution for no reason whatsoever and perpetuating the stereotype.

This the reason why it's important to understand how the theory was conceived, and the times that it came to be in. Darwin didn't want to piss off all the religious folk? He was already making enemies with his theory. So why back off? Maybe because deep down he had always held onto the creationist belief he had endeared himself too in his youth. And this theory of NS was a way to give both the believers and non-believers something to chew on.

But who really cares if he believed in god or not? It doesn't discount evolution either way. The theory is based on solid science. In Darwin's time they didn't have 1% of the knowledge we have today in regards to genetics and biology.

And as far as nests go, some of that behavior is taught from mother to child. Don't forget that birds are 99% of the time born in a nest. The questions you are asking about nest building is something you should ask a biologist. Remember, that genetic mutations affect the entire species, including the brain and intellectual ability. Asking how a creature knows to build a protective nest, is like asking how a human knows to eat food. Do you feel safer sleeping on the street or in your house in your bed? It sounds like you are over complicating the matter.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It's nothing but an attempt to erect a straw man.

Could you describe this straw man?

And did you or did you not post the following?

Yeah, well my view on Natural Selection is that it is just as imaginary a "force" as the creationist god. There quite literally is nothing physically selecting which organisms get to live on and which must die out. Nothing.

When called on that, you tried to introduce some kind of vitalist principle as a replacement for natural selection in evolution. I asked you how they differed. You have yet to answer that. Instead, what you have given us is several posts of irrelevant babble about whether Darwin believed in a creator or not.

You evidently can't answer the questions I asked you in any meaningful way. Instead, you offer prattle about the development of evolutionary thought and quotes from the Victorian era. I don't propose to dignify such crypto-creationist twaddle with a reply. Answer the questions honestly, propose a scientifically tenable alternative to natural selection. If you can't manage that, I am not interested.

a reply to: Barcs

No, natural selection is not a conscious process.

But metaphorically it's spoken of in that sense. All of evolutionary biology relies on speaking of NS in those terms...
You yourself have demonstrated what I mean:

Long term adaptation is controlled directly by natural selection.

natural selection just thins down the populations...

The environmental change is what "selects" the species

Nature selects.

The only difference now seems to be that Mother Nature is said to be doing the selecting....(instead of God)
Regardless, the point being made is that it's all metaphor.

You ask 10 different people what NS is and you'll get 10 variations of it. Jazzing it up with descriptors like 'mechanism', 'process', 'driver', 'engine', etc... but it's really none of those things

In your post alone you seem to offer a few different versions of NS, finally settling on:

Natural selection is just the term used to define an environmental change.

Now, one the one hand, that's not at all the definition of NS. And on the other, to state "it's just a term for" is confirmation that you too are relying on metaphor to explain what NS is...

The amount of importance placed on this idea of NS as the ruler of all things is alarming, especially when one realizes it's really all just one elaborate trope. This is in no way to mean that evolution is too, so please don't twist my words.

I can't get over why NS is always listed as the top "cause" of evolution, ahead of where the real causes are happening- in the genes...

And as far as nests go, some of that behavior is taught from mother to child.

Incorrect Im afraid. Nest building, and not just in birds, is entirely innate.

Don't forget that birds are 99% of the time born in a nest. The questions you are asking about nest building is something you should ask a biologist.

What does the 99% of the time in the nest have to do with instinctual behavior to build that nest. Instincts by definition are never learned. Clearly I should be asking a biologist, good advice...

Remember, that genetic mutations affect the entire species, including the brain and intellectual ability. Asking how a creature knows to build a protective nest, is like asking how a human knows to eat food. Do you feel safer sleeping on the street or in your house in your bed? It sounds like you are over complicating the matter.

You're only saying that these things are instincts, and that instincts arise from mutations. I'm more concerned with where the information (to instinctually build a complex termite nest) comes from. If it's from a mutation then how is this the cause for novel information? If it's already encoded in the DNA then from where did the know how to build a nest arise in the first place? I'm talking about the origin of instinct.