Evolution My ToE

[ecco]

Nothing you post about your same nature in the past belief is testable or observed actually. Just a belief. Calling it science would be fraud.

On the other hand, we do have evidence for why you believe that nature was different in the past.

You have no evidence to show that nature was different in the past. However, you do have your Fundamentalist beliefs in Genesis. The only way that Genesis can be correct is if nature was different in the past.

In other words, you made up a story about nature in the past to accommodate your Fundamentalist Religious beliefs.

Of course, I don't really believe that you made up that story. I don't think you are that creative. More likely some of the bright folks over at Answers in Genesis came up with it. Probably one of their sheeples got a little antsy and started put two and two together and started to ask some embarrassing questions. His concerns were quickly addressed.

Well, son. There's no need for concern. You see, back then light traveled at a different speed than it does now.

It did? Wow! What made it change speed?

GodDidIt.

Oh. OK

​

When in doubt, the right answer is always GodDidIt.

 

[ecco]

No idea. Yet many who profess to be Christian do.

Maybe the color of their glasses is different than you yours.

 

[dad]

On the other hand, we do have evidence for why you believe that nature was different in the past.

Then it is exactly as I have said, science doesn't know either way.
That leaves the historical and Scriptural accounts that you deny for no reason.

Of course, I don't really believe that you made up that story. I don't think you are that creative. More likely some of the bright folks over at Answers in Genesis came up with it.

Almost wish that was true, as they are in a better position to get info out to a wide audience. But alas I must take the credit for the concept.

 

[dad]

Maybe the color of their glasses is different than you yours.

Doesn't matter, all that matters if that they can read or at least listen to a recording.

 

[nPeace]

So, all I need from you is a clear answer to a simple question: do you agree that science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once?

If not, can you show me papers, conference proceedings, research, etc. showing that this is not the case?

Ciao

- viole

First of all viole, you have not shown me anything that says science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once... well, other than your posts.

Secondly, I don't know if you did read my post, but it has a link to information that specifically says... LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth but only one of many early organisms, all the others becoming extinct.
Here is another :- Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth
I could find a few more if you like.

Thirdly, I don't know of science being a hypothetical. It is a body of knowledge, but there are certain methodologies that must be applied before we can say "science says" anything.
So, no. Science does not overwhelmingly say what is hypothesized.

Fourth. Why are you speaking of what evolutionary biologists have distanced themselves from, since Uncle Charles Darwin died?
In that case, I am not sure you can exclude what Darwin himself did not. So where did life come from, if you know?
If you don't know, then why do you rule out special creation?
Do you accept that it is because it is presumed that there must have been a single common ancestor of all living organisms? Why? Because of a scientific consensus? Why?

 

[nPeace]

So from what I can tell, it seems you understand what "variation in a population" means and you agree that it's a real thing.

As for the rest, I'm just making sure you understand that populations of organisms are not made up of exact duplicates (i.e., clones) of each other.

Are we good?

Since when does cloning occur in nature, Fly?
I have no complaints here.

 

[Jose Fly]

Since when does cloning occur in nature, Fly?
I have no complaints here.

Okay, if we're on the same page on what "variability in a population" means (that populations are made up of individuals who differ from each other), then we can move on to how natural selection acts on that variability.

Let's go back to our population of deer. Let's say the deer live in a grassland environment where wolves have long since disappeared. But one year, a pack of wolves migrates into the grassland, sets up a den, and starts breeding. Now the deer have a predator to contend with.

Everything clear so far?

 

[nPeace]

Okay, if we're on the same page on what "variability in a population" means (that populations are made up of individuals who differ from each other), then we can move on to how natural selection acts on that variability.

Let's go back to our population of deer. Let's say the deer live in a grassland environment where wolves have long since disappeared. But one year, a pack of wolves migrates into the grassland, sets up a den, and starts breeding. Now the deer have a predator to contend with.

Everything clear so far?

I'm following you.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm following you.

Good. So the wolves start preying on the population of deer. But the deer they manage to chase down, kill, and eat are not randomly selected from the population. If you've ever seen nature documentaries, you'll know that wolves tend to seek out members of the herd that are easier to kill.

So in our scenario, let's say the grassland also has a parasite in the grass that infests deer (the deer eat the grass, which has the parasite on it, and the parasite then infects the deer) and over time can cause the deer to be weak. But, because of "variability in the population", not all the deer are equally susceptible to the parasite. Some individuals get major parasite infestations, some individuals get minor infestations, and some aren't susceptible to the parasite at all.

Now that the wolves are in the grassland and are looking for easy prey targets in the deer population, the deer that are weakened by parasites are more likely to be killed and eaten by the wolves than deer that have no parasites (or only have very minor infestation).

So far so good?

 

[nPeace]

Good. So the wolves start preying on the population of deer. But the deer they manage to chase down, kill, and eat are not randomly selected from the population. If you've ever seen nature documentaries, you'll know that wolves tend to seek out members of the herd that are easier to kill.

So in our scenario, let's say the grassland also has a parasite in the grass that infests deer (the deer eat the grass, which has the parasite on it, and the parasite then infects the deer) and over time can cause the deer to be weak. But, because of "variability in the population", not all the deer are equally susceptible to the parasite. Some individuals get major parasite infestations, some individuals get minor infestations, and some aren't susceptible to the parasite at all.

Now that the wolves are in the grassland and are looking for easy prey targets in the deer population, the deer that are weakened by parasites are more likely to be killed and eaten by the wolves than deer that have no parasites (or only have very minor infestation).

So far so good?

Did you just mention variation, heredity, and in some small way differential reproduction?

 

[ecco]

Then it is exactly as I have said, science doesn't know either way.
That leaves the historical and Scriptural accounts that you deny for no reason.

"For no reason"? Seriously? How about the accumulated knowledge of mankind?

No evidence of a global flood. Extensive evidence against a global flood.
No evidence of two humans originating the human race. Extensive evidence for evolution
No evidence that all animals sprang from two of every "kind" of survivors on Mt Ararat. Extensive evidence that animal diversity and migration took millions of years.

On your side, you have stories that were written down 4000 years ago from a mish-mash of oral myths and traditions. You accept advances in science except where they conflict with your deeply indoctrinated fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

If you don't know, then why do you rule out special creation?

For the same reason that we know that a special magic man in the sky doesn't cause earthquakes.
For the same reason that we know that a special magic man in the sky doesn't cause swarms of locusts.
For the same reason that we know that a special magic man in the sky doesn't cause volcanoes to erupt.

For the same reason that I Don't Know has always been more reliable and honest than GodDidIt.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you just mention variation, heredity, and in some small way differential reproduction?

Variation, yes (the different levels of parasite susceptibility in the deer population).
We haven't touched on heredity or differential reproduction yet.

 

[nPeace]

Variation, yes (the different levels of parasite susceptibility in the deer population).
We haven't touched on heredity or differential reproduction yet.

Okay, so let me make sure I am following you.
Are you no longer are referring to variation in traits, but variation in physical defect... or are you referring to variation regarding the amount of exposure to potential defects? Or is this a starting point of variations in the population after being exposed to new introductions to genes of the individuals, and how previous variations work with those (not trying to get ahead of you, but just making sure I keep up)? Or a combination of all the above?

Why I asked about the other two features, is because I noticed that you introduced them, even if not intentionally, and since we are discussing natural selection, I just want to remind you that natural selection is already at work, so long as these three features are available.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you no longer are referring to variation in traits, but variation in physical defect

Susceptibility (or not) to the parasite is a trait. So that some deer are more or less susceptible than others is variation in a trait.

or are you referring to variation regarding the amount of exposure to potential defects?

Nope. The parasite is in the grass the deer eat and the deer are oblivious to its existence. So all the deer are equally exposed to the parasite.

Or is this a starting point of variations in the population after being exposed to new introductions to genes of the individuals, and how previous variations work with those (not trying to get ahead of you, but just making sure I keep up)? Or a combination of all the above?

Why I asked about the other two features, is because I noticed that you introduced them, even if not intentionally, and since we are discussing natural selection, I just want to remind you that natural selection is already at work, so long as these three features are available.

Right now we're just covering the basics of the scenario, so let's just focus on that.

 

[nPeace]

Susceptibility (or not) to the parasite is a trait. So that some deer are more or less susceptible than others is variation in a trait.


Nope. The parasite is in the grass the deer eat and the deer are oblivious to its existence. So all the deer are equally exposed to the parasite.


Right now we're just covering the basics of the scenario, so let's just focus on that.

Just one thing... all deer do not eat the same amount of grass, and the parasite may be more plentiful in one patch of grass, so the exposure will vary. Nevertheless, proceed please.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just one thing... all deer do not eat the same amount of grass, and the parasite may be more plentiful in one patch of grass, so the exposure will vary.

That's a good point, but in our scenario it's not a factor in whether or not a specific individual gets the parasite. All they have to do is ingest a single parasite in order to be infected.

Nevertheless, proceed please.

So we now have a population of deer that has variability in a specific trait (susceptibility to a parasite, where some are immune, some are somewhat immune, and others are fully susceptible). Those with the parasite tend to be smaller, weaker, and generally less fit than those that are immune to the parasite.

As described earlier, the newly-arrived wolves tend to prey on deer that are easier to catch and kill.

So once the wolves start preying on the population of deer, they will tend to catch and kill individuals that have been weakened by the parasite. And which deer are the most weakened by the parasite? Those who are the most susceptible to it. As a result, the makeup of the deer population changes, as more individuals with parasite susceptibility are removed from the population (by the wolves), and deer that are immune to the parasite remain in the population.

Good so far?

 

[nPeace]

That's a good point, but in our scenario it's not a factor in whether or not a specific individual gets the parasite. All they have to do is ingest a single parasite in order to be infected.


So we now have a population of deer that has variability in a specific trait (susceptibility to a parasite, where some are immune, some are somewhat immune, and others are fully susceptible). Those with the parasite tend to be smaller, weaker, and generally less fit than those that are immune to the parasite.

As described earlier, the newly-arrived wolves tend to prey on deer that are easier to catch and kill.

So once the wolves start preying on the population of deer, they will tend to catch and kill individuals that have been weakened by the parasite. And which deer are the most weakened by the parasite? Those who are the most susceptible to it. As a result, the makeup of the deer population changes, as more individuals with parasite susceptibility are removed from the population (by the wolves), and deer that are immune to the parasite remain in the population.

Good so far?

So how do the wolves know which deer are the weakest? Don't they target the ones that seem more vulnerable - the young?
I understand what you are trying to say, so don't let me interrupt you.
I won't respond anymore, until you finish.

 

[Jose Fly]

So how do the wolves know which deer are the weakest?

If you've ever watched wolves hunt, they start by getting the whole herd to run, and then they focus in on the individuals that lag behind. It's fascinating to see how the pack works as a unit.

Don't they target the ones that seem more vulnerable - the young?

They sure do. With the young, oftentimes the mothers will protect their young and obviously those mothers who are the most fit will be the best at it and their young will be less likely to be killed.

I understand what you are trying to say, so don't let me interrupt you.
I won't respond anymore, until you finish.

Oh, please continue to respond. I don't want to do all this without regular check-ins and feedback from you, only to have you say "I wasn't clear on something you posted 3 days ago". I think the way we're doing this now is working just fine.

So to continue, let's add a little more detail to the scenario. Before the wolves showed up, the population of deer was made up of 60% individuals with parasite immunity, 20% with slight immunity, and 20% with no immunity (they are fully susceptible to the parasite). But once the wolves started preying on the deer and tending to kill the ones that had been weakened by the parasite, the composition of the deer population shifted to 80% individuals with parasite immunity, 15% with slight immunity, and 5% with no immunity.

Good?

 

[dad]

"For no reason"? Seriously? How about the accumulated knowledge of mankind?

That would not include unsubstansiated rumors and baseless beliefs about what forces on earth and laws were like long before science existed. I kid you not.

No evidence of a global flood.

..That you can see. But your religion imposes itself violently and methodically upon the evidences so it is impossible for you to see.

Extensive evidence against a global flood.

Old wives tales that have no basis in fact.

No evidence of two humans originating the human race.

Or against, so believe what you like.

Extensive evidence for evolution

Evolving is not in question here, only attributing current processes of evolving with credit for the variety of life itself on earth!

No evidence that all animals sprang from two of every "kind" of survivors on Mt Ararat. Extensive evidence that animal diversity and migration took millions of years.

Or against. Since science can't cover it anyhow that is expected!

On your side, you have stories that were written down 4000 years ago from a mish-mash of oral myths and traditions. You accept advances in science except where they conflict with your deeply indoctrinated fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Proven and time tested and observed by witnesses, and confirmed as true by Jesus, as well as billions of people who tested it in and for themselves!