Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Or not...so? Science doesn't know, Scripture and history weigh in with me. How sweet it is.

Science knows much more than your book of myths does. There is evidence for science, there is none for your fairy tales.

Except that is baloney. That is why you just proclaim it rather than post substance.

No, you know that is not true. There is a standing offer to teach you what and what is not evidence. Since you denied obvious evidence in the past you disqualified yourself from demanding it. But since I am a reasonable man I offered a fix. Once you learn what is and what is not evidence you can demand all of the evidence that you want. You have still not taken me up on my offer.

 

[nPeace]

Good!


It is the same. Variation in population exists....it just is....it's reality.

Natural selection depends on that variation, because if there were no variation there would be nothing to select for or against (the wolves would just prey on all the deer equally and the population wouldn't change). Natural selection also acts on that variation (wolves selecting deer without immunity) to produce changes in the population (increase in the proportion of deer with immunity).

So does that fit your earlier analogy?

Jose Fly

Okay, I see now. You're wondering how selection can be the result of variation (in part) and also act on variation. I understand how that wording can be confusing. One way to think about it is to liken selection to erosion. For example, one type of erosion is the result of water flowing up against a sand riverbank. But we can also describe that process as erosion acting on a sandy riverbank. Hopefully that helps.

nPeace

How does that help, Fly?
The erosion is acting on something else - the river bank, not the water.

Jose Fly

And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population.

nPeace

Okay. Please explain in detail, your very first comment,
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
...then we can step through the rest.

So now you are saying it is acting on the same thing.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.

 

[Jose Fly]

So does that fit your earlier analogy?
So now you are saying it is acting on the same thing.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Yep. In order for natural selection to occur, there must be variation in the population. That's why the Berkeley site you first referenced in the OP stated that "Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity". As I put it, "Natural selection depends on that variation, because if there were no variation there would be nothing to select for or against (the wolves would just prey on all the deer equally and the population wouldn't change). "

Natural selection also acts on that variation (wolves selecting deer without immunity) to produce changes in the population (increase in the proportion of deer with immunity).

So I believe that was your original question....how can selection both be the result of variation in a population, while also acting on that variation?

 

[dad]

Science knows much more than your book of myths does. There is evidence for science, there is none for your fairy tales.



No, you know that is not true. There is a standing offer to teach you what and what is not evidence. Since you denied obvious evidence in the past you disqualified yourself from demanding it. But since I am a reasonable man I offered a fix. Once you learn what is and what is not evidence you can demand all of the evidence that you want. You have still not taken me up on my offer.

To review then you cannot provide any link or post that evidences that nature on earth was the same, as the models for the past require in science. You disbelieve Genesis then, for no reason, and preach that you have worms as kin. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To review then you cannot provide any link or post that evidences that nature on earth was the same, as the models for the past require in science. You disbelieve Genesis then, for no reason, and preach that you have worms as kin. Got it.

I can give evidence for it. Something that you cannot do. But you don't get to demand evidence until you learn what is and what is not evidence. You want to believe in a fairy tale. But you confirm that it is worthless since you cannot support it.

 

[dad]

I can give evidence for it. Something that you cannot do. But you don't get to demand evidence until you learn what is and what is not evidence. You want to believe in a fairy tale. But you confirm that it is worthless since you cannot support it.

Some people pretend to be worms others (of the religion of TOE) think they really have relatives with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people pretend to be worms others (of the religion of TOE) think they really have relatives with them.

dad, believing in a fantasy does not make it so. Too bad that you have no reliable evidence for your beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Yep. In order for natural selection to occur, there must be variation in the population. That's why the Berkeley site you first referenced in the OP stated that "Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity". As I put it, "Natural selection depends on that variation, because if there were no variation there would be nothing to select for or against (the wolves would just prey on all the deer equally and the population wouldn't change). "

Natural selection also acts on that variation (wolves selecting deer without immunity) to produce changes in the population (increase in the proportion of deer with immunity).

So I believe that was your original question....how can selection both be the result of variation in a population, while also acting on that variation?

You don't deny that you said selection is acting on something else, do you? Let's get that sorted out first.
What did you mean?
Because when you say, natural selection also acts on that variation - the same variation it depends on in order to be present, we are actually at the very point we started.

I had an article, where someone showed that natural selection is not understood today, as Darwin proposed it. Unfortunately I can't find it, but hopefully I will.

I'll be back tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[ecco]

You cannot challenge the fact that what happens depends on the nature/forces/laws in place, and that you cannot prove what nature existed long ago on earth.

If ignorance is bliss, incoherent ignorance must by a continuous trip on a high grade drug.

The only thing you have to back up your assertions are stories that you yourself have admitted to making up.

The fairy tales of Dad vs the accumulated knowledge of mankind. Which is right and which is not worthy of the time it takes to throw it into a compost pile? Hmm.

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't deny that you said selection is acting on something else, do you? Let's get that sorted out first.
What did you mean?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, so if you could specify that would help.

Because when you say, natural selection also acts on that variation - the same variation it depends on in order to be present, we are actually at the very point we started.

Yep. That's exactly what the deer/wolf scenario illustrates...how natural selection can both depend on variability in a population, and act on that variability.

Natural selection depends on variation, because if there were no variation there would be nothing to select for or against (the wolves would just prey on all the deer equally and the population wouldn't change)....

...and....

Natural selection also acts on that variation (wolves selecting deer without immunity) to produce changes in the population (increase in the proportion of deer with immunity).

I had an article, where someone showed that natural selection is not understood today, as Darwin proposed it. Unfortunately I can't find it, but hopefully I will.

I'll be back tomorrow, hopefully.

Okay, talk to you then.

 

[usfan]

FYI, nPeace has me on ignore for merely suggesting that his being a Witness influences his views on science

..i would have guessed, because of rude and insulting behavior.. not all people are thick skinned, and can dish it back, to hostile religious bigots..

 

[dad]

If ignorance is bliss, incoherent ignorance must by a continuous trip on a high grade drug.

The only thing you have to back up your assertions are stories that you yourself have admitted to making up.

The fairy tales of Dad vs the accumulated knowledge of mankind. Which is right and which is not worthy of the time it takes to throw it into a compost pile? Hmm.

All that to avoid the obvious question of how models of the past are based on the present nature and you don't have any way of knowing if it was always the same on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..i would have guessed, because of rude and insulting behavior.. not all people are thick skinned, and can dish it back, to hostile religious bigots..

You really should not put you down that way. Perhaps a councillor could help on those self esteem issues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All that to avoid the obvious question of how models of the past are based on the present nature and you don't have any way of knowing if it was always the same on earth.

But we do have ways of knowing that a change almost certainly did not happen. Meanwhile you have no reliable evidence for your myths.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, so if you could specify that would help.


Yep. That's exactly what the deer/wolf scenario illustrates...how natural selection can both depend on variability in a population, and act on that variability.

Natural selection depends on variation, because if there were no variation there would be nothing to select for or against (the wolves would just prey on all the deer equally and the population wouldn't change)....

...and....

Natural selection also acts on that variation (wolves selecting deer without immunity) to produce changes in the population (increase in the proportion of deer with immunity).


Okay, talk to you then.

Okay, so you contributed nothing to my question. Thanks for your effort, nonetheless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, so you contributed nothing to my question. Thanks for your effort, nonetheless.

And he wonders, or at least complains, when people treat him with disrespect.

 

[tas8831]

You really should not put you down that way. Perhaps a councillor could help on those self esteem issues.

I am humiliating him on another forum. He plays the same whiner game there, too. Pretending to want to talk about 'science', then whining when I point out all the naive errors he makes. Called me a "definition nazi" for explaining what macroevolution actually means.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am humiliating him on another forum. He plays the same whiner game there, too. Pretending to want to talk about 'science', then whining when I point out all the naive errors he makes. Called me a "definition nazi" for explaining what macroevolution actually means.

What do you gain from humiliating someone? how come your view is right and everyone else is wrong

 

[tas8831]

What do you gain from humiliating someone?

I see you are not familiar with his M.O. The person in question is a hypocrite, a bully, and a loud mouth who's primary means of "debate" is to first regurgitate a series of errors he has already made and expect everyone to take them at face value. Upon having his errors explained, he retreats to name-calling and whining - see here, for but one example:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Here is an example of one of his posts that eventually got the thread closed down:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

He wrote this after hundreds of posts had been made discussing the science - and showing his errors. He especially didn't like that guy because of this post:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Your creationist bully pal didn't like the fact that his ignorance was demonstrated.

Humiliation is what his ilk deserves.

how come your view is right and everyone else is wrong

Because on the issues in question, I can document the errors of his claims and supply evidence that support mine. I know this will come as a shock, but just because a person makes a claim (has a view) on something is not a guarantee that the claim has merit.

Take nPeace, who ranked your post as a Winner.
Back when he was not too afraid to engage me, he attempted to rebut some evidence I had posted - it did not go well for him, as I was easily able to point out his errors and gaffes:

The Miracle of Water.

This did not stop him from continuing posting errors and nonsense and declaring victory. This is the problem - too many people think they know more than they do, and their ego prevents them from acknowledging it.

How do you think bullies should be handled? With kid gloves and adoration, as long as they are on your side?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see you are not familiar with his M.O. The person in question is a hypocrite, a bully, and a loud mouth who's primary means of "debate" is to first regurgitate a series of errors he has already made and expect everyone to take them at face value. Upon having his errors explained, he retreats to name-calling and whining - see here, for but one example:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Here is an example of one of his posts that eventually got the thread closed down:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

He wrote this after hundreds of posts had been made discussing the science - and showing his errors. He especially didn't like that guy because of this post:

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Your creationist bully pal didn't like the fact that his ignorance was demonstrated.

Humiliation is what his ilk deserves.

Because on the issues in question, I can document the errors of his claims and supply evidence that support mine. I know this will come as a shock, but just because a person makes a claim (has a view) on something is not a guarantee that the claim has merit.

Like take nPeace, you ranked your post as a Winner.
Back when he was not too afraid to engage me, he attempted to rebut some evidence I had posted - it did not go well for him, as I was easily able to point out his errors and gaffes:

The Miracle of Water.

This did not stop him from continuing posting errors and nonsense and declaring victory. This is the problem - too many people think they know more than they do, and their ego prevents them from acknowledging it.

How do you think bullies should be handled? With kid gloves and adoration, as long as they are on your side?

In the case of this thread, it honestly looks like you are the bully with your attitude toward others who disagree with you. If you find that someone is wrong in their views or knowledge, instead of bully them, why not teach them in a civilized manner without making comments only to hurt them.

Put your self in their shoes, where you are the one being bullied for everything you said, How would that make you feel?