Evolution My ToE

[ecco]

None of us can know if Jesus ever met a wild boar.

However, one can try to ascertain the validity of certain actions attributed to Jesus.

For example, many Christians and especially fundamentalists, believe Jesus gave a lengthy sermon referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. It is over 2000 words and is quoted word for word in the Book of Matthew.

One must ask how could such a long sermon have been recorded at the time.

The answer is that it couldn't have been accurately recorded. Certainly, the "author" gives no clue. He just writes and the reader is supposed to believe that his quotes of Jesus' words are accurate.

This is very similar to what some people do in these forums - they make assertions but offer no evidence whatsoever to support their claims.

We, as a civilized, educated society should be beyond accepting any and all mystical nonsense just because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

It means immunity to the parasite is hereditary. So when the wolves start eliminating deer without immunity from the population and thereby leave more deer with immunity in the population, that will carry over to future generations. Since the selective predation by the wolves is natural selection, and since that selection has caused a change in the genetic makeup of the deer population (to one with a greater proportion of deer with immunity (and its associated genetics)), we have natural selection causing an evolutionary change in a population.

I'm not worried about Fly. Why would you even think that?

Well, your attack against me being in the context of a "serpent", plus the fact that you are a Christian, made me wonder if you believe I, like the serpent in the Garden, was trying to tempt you towards something evil.

Do you imagine that you are my tutor? Ah, yes. You imagine you are my tutor.

Nope. It's simply that in this thread you asked questions about natural selection. I figured I could help answer them. That's all. I mean....did you not want anyone to answer your questions?

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.

Okay. Just a suggestion here....if you want to convey that you don't agree with something, it'd be best if you put it in precisely those terms ("I don't agree") rather than in ways that could be confusing (e.g., "I don't see").

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?

That's completely fair. To be clear, throughout our conversations I've never harbored any sort of belief that you would end up agreeing with me. As I said, you asked questions about natural selection and I've tried to answer them...nothing more.

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

I guess then I just don't understand. You asked some questions about natural selection, I tried to answer, we seemed to get along just fine, and then out of nowhere you started making personal attacks at me, even comparing me to a "serpent".

I'm truly sorry you feel this way.

 

[nPeace]

It means immunity to the parasite is hereditary. So when the wolves start eliminating deer without immunity from the population and thereby leave more deer with immunity in the population, that will carry over to future generations. Since the selective predation by the wolves is natural selection, and since that selection has caused a change in the genetic makeup of the deer population (to one with a greater proportion of deer with immunity (and its associated genetics)), we have natural selection causing an evolutionary change in a population.


Well, your attack against me being in the context of a "serpent", plus the fact that you are a Christian, made me wonder if you believe I, like the serpent in the Garden, was trying to tempt you towards something evil.


Nope. It's simply that in this thread you asked questions about natural selection. I figured I could help answer them. That's all. I mean....did you not want anyone to answer your questions?


Okay. Just a suggestion here....if you want to convey that you don't agree with something, it'd be best if you put it in precisely those terms ("I don't agree") rather than in ways that could be confusing (e.g., "I don't see").


That's completely fair. To be clear, throughout our conversations I've never harbored any sort of belief that you would end up agreeing with me. As I said, you asked questions about natural selection and I've tried to answer them...nothing more.


I guess then I just don't understand. You asked some questions about natural selection, I tried to answer, we seemed to get along just fine, and then out of nowhere you started making personal attacks at me, even comparing me to a "serpent".

I'm truly sorry you feel this way.

I put you on ignore the first time for a similar reason. I wanted to give you another chance, but I am afraid, that was a mistake.
I don't know if you have trouble reading, but I form my conclusion based on my earlier experience with you, and I saw you do similar things with my fellow brother and sister, so I think it is not because you have difficulty reading, but you deliberately twist what people say, and also the other things I said earlier.

You asked me what's bothering me, and I told you, your actions are bothering me, which I consider to be serpent like.
What did I say, again? Your actions, I consider to be serpent like.
So now what do you do? You repeat in every post, that I called you a serpent.
Is that the truth Fly?
Let me allow you to answer that question, so that you would understand what I mean when I say you twist what people say. Are you being truthful?

 

[ecco]

Because time and time again science have to go back to rewrite their theory or they learn that whoops there was more to it than we first could record with our instruments.

Yes. It's called progress.

In 1952, the polio epidemic reached a peak in the U.S.: almost 58,000 reported cases and more than 3,000 deaths.

In 2015 no one died.

We've also learned how to transplant hearts and kidneys.

It's called progress. Yet some people, like you, denigrate science for moving forward.

Of course, while you denigrate science, you sit in front of a computer that uses integrated circuits. Do you denigrate the science of the past that made computers using vacuum tubes?

When you fly in a jet do you denigrate the science of the past that had airplanes driven by propellers?



Perhaps you would be happier living in a hut 4000 years ago.

 

[dad]

You are the one suggesting weirdness, not me.

I see nothing weird in assuming history and Scripture have some inkling of what the past was like and have no reason to be in denial as you are.

What is weird is pretending we must accept a nature on earth in the far past that you claim but cannot prove in any way that is in total opposition to recorded life.

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.

Flattery will get you nowhere To be more precise though, we don't know if the animals got there and then evolved after rapidly, of course in that different past nature. In either case it explains the different animals and how they ended up on that island.

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.

The mechanism for the rapid separation is not known by science. Since all your projections, beliefs and models are based on the current nature only (extrapolated into the past) all we need to know is whether nature was the same! Science doesn't know, so it is sidelined on the origin issues.

 

[Jose Fly]

I put you on ignore the first time for a similar reason. I wanted to give you another chance, but I am afraid, that was a mistake.
I don't know if you have trouble reading, but I form my conclusion based on my earlier experience with you, and I saw you do similar things with my fellow brother and sister, so I think it is not because you have difficulty reading, but you deliberately twist what people say, and also the other things I said earlier.

You asked me what's bothering me, and I told you, your actions are bothering me, which I consider to be serpent like.
What did I say, again? Your actions, I consider to be serpent like.
So now what do you do? You repeat in every post, that I called you a serpent.
Is that the truth Fly?
Let me allow you to answer that question, so that you would understand what I mean when I say you twist what people say. Are you being truthful?

Are you saying that when I said you compared me to a serpent (which I did HERE and HERE), I was twisting your words because you didn't compare me to a serpent, you just said my actions were serpentlike?

If so, all I can say is, to me there is no difference between comparing someone to a serpent and saying their actions are serpentlike. IOW, "your actions are serpentlike" is comparing someone to a serpent.

And btw, I don't believe I ever said you called me a serpent.

 

[nPeace]

Are you saying that when I said you compared me to a serpent (which I did HERE and HERE), I was twisting your words because you didn't compare me to a serpent, you just said my actions were serpentlike?

If so, all I can say is to me there is no difference between comparing someone to a serpent and saying their actions are serpentlike. IOW, "your actions are serpentlike" is comparing someone to a serpent.

And btw, I don't believe I ever said you called me a serpent.

Right. You did say,I compared you to a serpent.
So I didn't call you a serpent, but I compared you to a serpent, in your opinion?
I am not aware of that. Is that a fact, or are you just saying this is how you feel about it - your personal opinion?

When you asked if something was bothering me, I suppose you might not have wanted me to say what was so directly. I really wasn't thinking at the time, how you would take it personally, which is what I should probably have done.

I am sorry I expressed what was bothering me, and what I thought about what your actions appeared to be.
It was not my intent to hurt you, and I probably should have given more thought to how to say, your actions did not seem genuine.
I apologize.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right. You did say,I compared you to a serpent.
So I didn't call you a serpent, but I compared you to a serpent, in your opinion?
I am not aware of that. Is that a fact, or are you just saying this is how you feel about it - your personal opinion?

It's my opinion.

When you asked if something was bothering me, I suppose you might not have wanted me to say what was so directly. I really wasn't thinking at the time, how you would take it personally, which is what I should probably have done.

It's okay, I did ask after all. I just wasn't getting why you took such a quick turn towards going after me personally, when we were having a friendly discussion (or at least I thought we were....maybe I was wrong).

Your reply just caught me by surprise.

I am sorry I expressed what was bothering me, and what I thought about what your actions appeared to be.
It was not my intent to hurt you, and I probably should have given more thought to how to say, your actions did not seem genuine.
I apologize.

First, thank you. Very much appreciated.

But you don't need to apologize for truthfully answering a question I asked. What's the old saying? Don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to hear the answer?

For full disclosure, when I first saw in this thread that you were no longer ignoring me, I made a deliberate effort to be as friendly and helpful as I could, while avoiding all personal comments. I understood how last time I got rather snarky (which I tend to do) and how that offended you. So today when you seemed to be offended and implied that you were going to start ignoring me again, I was completely baffled. To me, it was like "When I'm a smart alec, he ignores me. When I'm nice, he ignores me. What else does he want me to do?"

Anyways, I still hope our discussion has at least been somewhat helpful.

 

[nPeace]

It's my opinion.


It's okay, I did ask after all. I just wasn't getting why you took such a quick turn towards going after me personally, when we were having a friendly discussion (or at least I thought we were....maybe I was wrong).

Your reply just caught me by surprise.


First, thank you. Very much appreciated.

But you don't need to apologize for truthfully answering a question I asked. What's the old saying? Don't ask questions if you aren't prepared to hear the answer?

For full disclosure, when I first saw in this thread that you were no longer ignoring me, I made a deliberate effort to be as friendly and helpful as I could, while avoiding all personal comments. I understood how last time I got rather snarky (which I tend to do) and how that offended you. So today when you seemed to be offended and implied that you were going to start ignoring me again, I was completely baffled. To me, it was like "When I'm a smart alec, he ignores me. When I'm nice, he ignores me. What else does he want me to do?"

Anyways, I still hope our discussion has at least been somewhat helpful.

I did realize you were making an effort.
I think with me, I tend to pick up on, or be more sensitive to perceived deception, because of dealing with it at a young age. So once I get any "whiff" of it, it tends to trigger a reaction.
It's like, "once bitten, twice shy".

Anyhow. We are imperfect. So I will try to be more patient. These situations will help me improve.

We are not done yet.
I want to exhaust every possible angle on this, so back to natural selection
A. Natural selection is the process where organisms with favorable traits are more likely to reproduce.
B. Natural selection is the predator selectively preying on weaker prey.
C. Both. Please explain.

Please refine B, if need be, to include any elements you excluded, otherwise it will be taken, as is, and may not be well understood, or considered accurate. Thanks.

 

[Jose Fly]

I did realize you were making an effort.
I think with me, I tend to pick up on, or be more sensitive to perceived deception, because of dealing with it at a young age. So once I get any "whiff" of it, it tends to trigger a reaction.
It's like, "once bitten, twice shy".

Anyhow. We are imperfect. So I will try to be more patient. These situations will help me improve.

Thanks for sharing. I guess we should all try and do better, eh?

We are not done yet.
I want to exhaust every possible angle on this, so back to natural selection
A. Natural selection is the process where organisms with favorable traits are more likely to reproduce.
B. Natural selection is the predator selectively preying on weaker prey.
C. Both. Please explain.

Please refine B, if need be, to include any elements you excluded, otherwise it will be taken, as is, and may not be well understood, or considered accurate. Thanks.

It's C ("both"), or more accurately, B leads to A. The "favorable trait" in our scenario is deer having parasite immunity.

As the wolves remove more individual deer that don't have parasite immunity from the population, that decreases the number of deer without immunity, which means proportionally there are now more deer with immunity. Since the population now has a higher proportion of deer with parasite immunity (the favorable trait), when they breed they will pass that on to the next generation, which will then have greater proportion of deer with parasite immunity (the favorable trait) than the population did before the wolves showed up.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for sharing. I guess we should all try and do better, eh?


It's C ("both"), or more accurately, B leads to A. The "favorable trait" in our scenario is deer having parasite immunity.

As the wolves remove more individual deer that don't have parasite immunity from the population, that decreases the number of deer without immunity, which means proportionally there are now more deer with immunity. Since the population now has a higher proportion of deer with parasite immunity (the favorable trait), when they breed they will pass that on to the next generation, which will then have greater proportion of deer with parasite immunity (the favorable trait) than the population did before the wolves showed up.

Almost thought you weren't coming on today. I'm not going to be on later today and tomorrow, so I am glad you showed up before I logged off.

Okay. So which of the following is true?
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is not natural selection.
B. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is selective pressure.
C. Natural selection is not selective pressure.
D. Selective pressure leads to natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

Almost thought you weren't coming on today. I'm not going to be on later today and tomorrow, so I am glad you showed up before I logged off.

No hurries, no worries.

Okay. So which of the following is true?
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is not natural selection.

That's false.

B. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is selective pressure.

That's true.

C. Natural selection is not selective pressure.

That's false.

D. Selective pressure leads to natural selection.

Not quite. Selective pressure is natural selection.

 

[nPeace]

No hurries, no worries.


That's false.


That's true.


That's false.


Not quite. Selective pressure is natural selection.

Hmmm.
Here is your chance to show me one paper that shows "selective pressure is natural selection."

 

[Jose Fly]

Hmmm.
Here is your chance to show me one paper that shows "selective pressure is natural selection."

Allow me to clarify a bit. Selective pressure is a component of natural selection. IOW, it's one of the things that cause natural selection.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[nPeace]

Allow me to clarify a bit. Selective pressure is a component of natural selection. IOW, it's one of the things that cause natural selection.

Sorry 'bout that.

No problem. I won't bother to get into the details of what I know about you and this subject.

So. Do you want to go over the question again? Just for the record. So there is no confusion.

Which of the following is true?
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is not natural selection.
B. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is selective pressure.
C. Natural selection is not selective pressure.
D. Selective pressure leads to natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

No problem. I won't bother to get into the details of what I know about you and this subject.

Which of the following is true?
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is not natural selection.

Not totally true, since predation is one component of natural selection.

B. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey is selective pressure.

True.

C. Natural selection is not selective pressure.

True. Natural selection is caused by (in part) selective pressure.

D. Selective pressure leads to natural selection.

True.

 

[nPeace]

Not totally true, since predation is one component of natural selection.


True.


True. Natural selection is caused by (in part) selective pressure.


True.

I assume, when you say "predation is one component of natural selection", you mean in the particular scenario you used, since predation is not present in every case of natural selection, according to scientists who apply natural selection in practically everything in the universe.

So you are not saying predation is natural selection, but a component of it. Is that correct?
So the answer would be true regardless. Is that so?

 

[Jose Fly]

I assume, when you say "predation is one component of natural selection", you mean in the particular scenario you used, since predation is not present in every case of natural selection, according to scientists who apply natural selection in practically everything in the universe.

I mean that it is one part of the larger process of natural selection. Other parts include variation in the population and heredity.

And you are correct. Predation is not the only type of selective pressure that can exist.

So you are not saying predation is natural selection, but a component of it. Is that correct?

Correct.

So the answer would be true regardless. Is that so?

To which question?

 

[nPeace]

I mean that it is one part of the larger process of natural selection. Other parts include variation in the population and heredity.

And you are correct. Predation is not the only type of selective pressure that can exist.


Correct.


To which question?

Since you are not saying predation is natural selection, but a component of it, then
A. Predators (wolves) preying the weaker prey [predation] is not natural selection... is true.
Is that right?

 

[ecco]

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.

The mechanism for the rapid separation is not known by science.

The reason that science does not have a mechanism for the rapid separation is that there was no rapid separation, except in your convoluted mind.

What is weird is pretending we must accept a nature on earth in the far past that you claim but cannot prove in any way that is in total opposition to recorded life.

Nature was not in total opposition to recorded life, except in your convoluted mind.