Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

There will always be people we come across who see things differently than ourselves, but how we react to their claims and view does not need to be of a nature that hurts. And you will find people of all walks of life that can both be right sometimes and wrong other times. Sometimes creationists are wrong, sometimes others are wrong and creationists right.

This is often not considered. It seems people opposed to religious views think that when a religious person says anything contrary to popular opinion, or skeptics' belief, the religious person must be dishonest, because they somehow don't believe what they are saying, but believe what the skeptic believes.
It is as though everyone is supposed to be only seeing one view, and if they don't, they must be lying.
Like being in a marriage where your mate only sees one side... theirs.

 

[nPeace]

So you still have no idea at all how natural selection both depends on, and acts on variability in a population?

No.
I am really sorry I lost that post where this guy explained it as I understand it. I remember he used the example of weather.
When we think of weather, there are conditions. Based on what conditions, or factors exist, we expect certain weather. Simple.

So for example, the temperature may be a certain way. The wind may be a certain way, etc. The weather will be what it is, based on those factors.
Likewise, variation exist with different conditions - in other words, all variations are not the same... nonetheless they exists. Heredity will be affected by that, and we will have differential reproduction. These are the conditions. Natural selection will be / take place / happen, according to those conditions. In effect, those conditions result in natural selection, just as the factors or conditions in the atmosphere result in the weather.
The weather need not act on any of the condition, but it will indeed affect you and I.
This is how I understand it.
I don't see how natural selection acts on anything - it's a selection that occurs naturally, and is based on, or more accurately... a result of those three factors - heredity, variation, and differential reproduction.

Do you understand how I am seeing it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take a look in the Atheist DIR and you have countless people claiming that because there is no physical "proof" religion must be wrong

Really? I have not seen that. Perhaps you are misinterpreting posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take a look in the Atheist DIR and you have countless people claiming that because there is no physical "proof" religion must be wrong

Really? I have not seen that. Perhaps you are misinterpreting posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.
I am really sorry I lost that post where this guy explained it as I understand it. I remember he used the example of weather.
When we think of weather, there are conditions. Based on what conditions, or factors exist, we expect certain weather. Simple.

So for example, the temperature may be a certain way. The wind may be a certain way, etc. The weather will be what it is, based on those factors.
Likewise, variation exist with different conditions - in other words, all variations are not the same... nonetheless they exists. Heredity will be affected by that, and we will have differential reproduction. These are the conditions. Natural selection will be / take place / happen, according to those conditions. In effect, those conditions result in natural selection, just as the factors or conditions in the atmosphere result in the weather.
The weather need not act on any of the condition, but it will indeed affect you and I.
This is how I understand it.
I don't see how natural selection acts on anything - it's a selection that occurs naturally, and is based on, or more accurately... a result of those three factors - heredity, variation, and differential reproduction.

Do you understand how I am seeing it?

You forgot changing ecological pressures.

 

[nPeace]

A person can convince themselves they have facts, and believe strongly they do, when they don't.
If one is going to say a hypothesis is fact, we may as well stop doing science and just believe everything the majority of scientists believe. In other words. Fact by consensus - or majority rule.

 

[Jose Fly]

No.
I am really sorry I lost that post where this guy explained it as I understand it. I remember he used the example of weather.
When we think of weather, there are conditions. Based on what conditions, or factors exist, we expect certain weather. Simple.

So for example, the temperature may be a certain way. The wind may be a certain way, etc. The weather will be what it is, based on those factors.
Likewise, variation exist with different conditions - in other words, all variations are not the same... nonetheless they exists. Heredity will be affected by that, and we will have differential reproduction. These are the conditions. Natural selection will be / take place / happen, according to those conditions. In effect, those conditions result in natural selection, just as the factors or conditions in the atmosphere result in the weather.
The weather need not act on any of the condition, but it will indeed affect you and I.
This is how I understand it.
I don't see how natural selection acts on anything

- it's a selection that occurs naturally, and is based on, or more accurately... a result of those three factors - heredity, variation, and differential reproduction.

So let's go back to the deer/wolf example one item at a time.

Do you understand how the wolves acted on the deer population by preying on them?

Do you understand how I am seeing it?

Honestly, I'm having trouble with that. It's such an obvious and intuitive thing to me, I don't understand how or why you're struggling with it.

 

[nPeace]

So let's go back to the deer/wolf example one item at a time.

Do you understand how the wolves acted on the deer population by preying on them?

Yes. The wolves are not natural selection.

Honestly, I'm having trouble with that. It's such an obvious and intuitive thing to me, I don't understand how or why you're struggling with it.

Just try to see beyond yourself, and appreciate the fact that you are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. Therefore, we don't live in a world where everyone sees eye to eye, or must believe the same things.
I'm going to make a wild guess that your family does not agree on everything you believe.
Does that help in any way?

I'm wondering how it's so easy for you to understand, yet you seem to have misled me previously, by saying that natural selection is acting on something else, which you led me to believe you were about to explain, then you say it's acting on the same thing that produces it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes. The wolves are not natural selection.

Actually, they are. The wolves selectively preying on deer that are weaker (in our case due to parasites) are the selective pressure.

Predators are a classic textbook example of natural selection.

Just try to see beyond yourself, and appreciate the fact that you are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. Therefore, we don't live in a world where everyone sees eye to eye, or must believe the same things.
I'm going to make a wild guess that your family does not agree on everything you believe.
Does that help in any way?

Oh I understand how you don't agree or believe much of what comes from evolutionary biology. You've made that abundantly clear.

What I struggle with is why you don't understand something like natural selection, when it seems so obvious and intuitive.

I'm wondering how it's so easy for you to understand, yet you seem to have misled me previously, by saying that natural selection is acting on something else, which you led me to believe you were about to explain, then you say it's acting on the same thing that produces it.

My understanding all along has been that the entire point of this discussion is to help you understand how selection can rely on variation in populations while also acting on that variation. I've stated as much several times in this thread and you didn't object or correct me.

So if you felt I was being misleading by doing exactly what I kept saying I was trying to do, then I am truly confused as to where you're coming from.

 

[nPeace]

Actually, they are. The wolves selectively preying on deer that are weaker (in our case due to parasites) are the selective pressure.

Predators are a classic textbook example of natural selection.

Seriously? The wolves are naturals selection?
The wolves, and the wolves selectively preying are two different things.
A. The wolves
B. The wolves preying on the weaker animal.
Which is natural selection, again... A or B?

Oh I understand how you don't agree or believe much of what comes from evolutionary biology. You've made that abundantly clear.

What I struggle with is why you don't understand something like natural selection, when it seems so obvious and intuitive.


My understanding all along has been that the entire point of this discussion is to help you understand how selection can rely on variation in populations while also acting on that variation. I've stated as much several times in this thread and you didn't object or correct me.

So if you felt I was being misleading by doing exactly what I kept saying I was trying to do, then I am truly confused as to where you're coming from.

I'm not going back again for you to pretend that you are ignorant to what I am referring to. Others have identified how you use this tactic over and over again, in order to slither out of an uncomfortable position.
So, again. Whatever.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seriously? The wolves are naturals selection?
The wolves, and the wolves selectively preying are two different things.
A. The wolves
B. The wolves preying on the weaker animal.
Which is natural selection, again... A or B?

My mistake...I should have been more specific in my wording. Yes, it is the wolves preying on the deer that is the natural selection in our scenario.

So do you understand and agree that the wolves preying on the deer are the natural selection in our scenario?

I'm not going back again for you to pretend that you are ignorant to what I am referring to. Others have identified how you use this tactic over and over again, in order to slither out of an uncomfortable position.
So, again. Whatever.

Why have you suddenly made things personal in both our discussions? Is something bothering you?

 

[nPeace]

My mistake...I should have been more specific in my wording. Yes, it is the wolves preying on the deer that is the natural selection in our scenario.

So do you understand and agree that the wolves preying on the deer are the natural selection in our scenario?

Do I understand and agree?
You'll have to be clear as to if you left anything out.
Where does heredity come in here? Or are you of the view that that doesn't have to be in your scenario?

Why have you suddenly made things personal in both our discussions? Is something bothering you?

I think I would be dishonest if I said, your actions, which I consider serpent like, were not bothering me.
I think you deliberately avoid questions..sometimes feinting ignorance, in order to throw someone off the direction they are taking with you.
I think your intention is to frustrate the person enough that they won't bother, while at the same time you maneuver into a position to control the discussion.
I don't take kindly to those tactics.

 

[ecco]

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.

You are the one suggesting weirdness, not me. You are the one who came up with the idea that, following the Flood, Australia waited for people and kangaroos and other animals to get there, then suddenly started moving, zipped across the Pacific to its present location and suddenly stop. What's really funny is that you do not see how ludicrous that is. What's really telling is that you cannot give any reason for Australia behaving this way.

Even the stories of L. Ron Hubbard made more sense than your story.

 

[ecco]

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.

You've been on this forum for a year. Surely you have seen people with scientific knowledge patiently trying to explain basic science to creos and fundies and woosters. In exchange for their patience and politeness, they are often subjected to arguments by "cut and paste". In exchange for their patience and politeness, they are often subjected to flat out lies and denials.

Sometimes, some people just need a good smack across the back of the head (or, at least, its electronic equivalent).

 

[Jose Fly]

Do I understand and agree?
You'll have to be clear as to if you left anything out.
Where does heredity come in here? Or are you of the view that that doesn't have to be in your scenario?

Recall that earlier, I clarified that immunity to the parasite was hereditary.

I think I would be dishonest if I said, your actions, which I consider serpent like, were not bothering me.

Are you worried that I'm trying to persuade you towards something evil?

I think you deliberately avoid questions..sometimes feinting ignorance, in order to throw someone off the direction they are taking with you.

All I can do is assure you that I do not avoid questions. If I miss any (which I'm sure happens), it's not deliberate. So if there are questions you would like me to answer, post them and I promise you I'll do my best to answer.

I think your intention is to frustrate the person enough that they won't bother, while at the same time you maneuver into a position to control the discussion.
I don't take kindly to those tactics.

I'm not sure what to say to that. All I've done in this thread is try to help you understand some of the topics you expressed confusion about. I thought it was going well and we were getting along just fine.

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly additionally, I think you twist statement people make, in order to make it appear extreme, when it can be taken on a reasonable level. That was in the other thread.

 

[ecco]

Sometimes creationists are wrong, sometimes others are wrong and creationists right.

Please give an example of a Creationist being right.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly additionally, I think you twist statement people make, in order to make it appear extreme, when it can be taken on a reasonable level. That was in the other thread.

I don't understand why you've elected to turn this into a series of personal attacks, rather than maintaining focus on the subject we were discussing. All I can figure is that somewhere I must have touched a nerve.

Again, are you worried that I'm trying to persuade you towards something evil (hence your comparing me to a "serpent")?

 

[nPeace]

Recall that earlier, I clarified that immunity to the parasite was hereditary.

What does that mean... yes, heredity is involved?

Are you worried that I'm trying to persuade you towards something evil?

I'm not worried about Fly. Why would you even think that? Do you imagine that you are my tutor?

All I can do is assure you that I do not avoid questions. If I miss any (which I'm sure happens), it's not deliberate. So if there are questions you would like me to answer, post them and I promise you I'll do my best to answer.

I'm not sure what to say to that. All I've done in this thread is try to help you understand some of the topics you expressed confusion about. I thought it was going well and we were getting along just fine.

Ah, yes. You imagine you are my tutor.
If I express that I don't see how something is the case, it doesn't automatically mean I don't understand. It may mean I don't agree.

Please, feel free to do your best to explain it, if you so wish to, but please bury the thought that I will accept it after you explain it.
Bear in mind that a person may explain his position / view / understanding, of something, but the listener may not agree, and have a different view.
Perhaps you have not convinced them.
Is that fair?

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand why you've elected to turn this into a series of personal attacks, rather than maintaining focus on the subject we were discussing. All I can figure is that somewhere I must have touched a nerve.

Again, are you worried that I'm trying to persuade you towards something evil (hence your comparing me to a "serpent")?

You asked me a question Fly. I answered, and this is what you do? This is exactly what I mean.