Evolution My ToE

[viole]

See this thread, and particularly, this post.

Well, You say science and religion are not incompatible.

Science claims that we all come from a common ancestor. That we and pigs have a common ancestor, for instance.

I am happy that religion is now compatible with science and understood that, too. Took a long time, but I am sincerely happy that you guys saw the photons, too, and abandoned that ridiculous creationism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

Then can you please explain what you meant when you said...

"I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept."

What specifically is confusing you?

I understand that. I was only saying that useful and positive suggests the same thing to me.

Then I'm still confused as to what you meant when you said "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?" Can you explain?

So if one is off, then it's off for everything else. Isn't it.
If I find a fossil in a layer where I date all fossils found in that strata to be 500 million years, but then other evidence shows the fossil to be very much younger, and I go with that, then I should question the age of every other fossil in that strata. Not so?

It all depends on the specifics. Every situation is unique and has its own set of variables, so it's not really appropriate to make definitive, sweeping statements based on vague hypotheticals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Selective breeding is done within a species.

Thank you. Couldn't be simpler.

 

[dad]

Has anyone ever seen anything poofed into existence? What mechanism would explain such a thing? It violates the laws of physics. It's a claim of magic.

It seems like magic to caveman science. Anything not in their little tiny box is magic to them.

Abiogenesis posits no magic. It's mechanisms are intuitive and observable.

It posits the natural world as we now know it was responsible for creation of life. That is insanity, not magic.

Evolution, as well, posits no magic, it's mechanisms are observed all the time.

Of course evolving would be observed as would be toe nails and teeth if all were part of creation. The problem is that you prefer to leave God out of the picture and attribute life itself TO the created trait of adapting/evolving.

What is not observed is that life came from the evolving. That is religion.

Tested and proven scripture? How was scripture tested? How was it proven? What features were proven?

It has a test built in. All who try Jesus will know if the things He says are true. I took the test. Millions did. It works. Then there is the fulfilled prophesy. Then there are the witnessed miracles...etc.

But which "God's Word?" -- the Quran? the Tao? the Gita? Is there any evidence that the Bible is more authoritative than any other religious book?

Jesus.

Is there any reason to believe the Bible's authoritative at all? It seems to me that it's considered sacred 'cause children are taught that it's sacred, and see those around them treating it as sacred. It's an argumentum ad populum.

See above.

Critical analysis is hard; it's uncomfortable, it threatens the ...

When you define critical as physical only then it is hard indeed when we are talking about something else entirely..namely, the spiritual!

Do you avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable; because it threatens you?

I do not avoid the physical aspect of life and creation at all. I simply keep it in it's temporal place.

 

[dad]

How so? Name the fallacy, please.
?????????? -- Proven how? What proves it? "Millions tried Him and know?" What does that prove? Millions tried Thor, Millions tried Allah. Millions tried Krishna --and know. How are the Christian millions any different?

It means we saw Jesus risen from the dead.

This is not evidence. This is not a reason to believe.
The reports of Jesus are hearsay. There are no first-person accounts.

When we tap into the power we get results. Like turning on a light, you see the light, not the electricity that powers it.

Other holy books report witnessed miracles. Why are the Biblical reports any more believable?
Modern Israel observed Jesus? Is there video footage? Why have I not heard of this?

I do not doubt there are also bad spirits that have some power.

Dad, you don't understand the concept of evidence. You don't understand how to evaluate evidence.

You don't. Why do you wave away witnessed history?

The Bible is a heavily edited, cherry-picked and altered anthology of ancient writings. Don't you agree? What makes it reliable evidence of anything?

The question that matters is whether God inspired it. If He is behind it then any bumps on the way are calculated into the mix!

 

[nPeace]

Well, You say science and religion are not incompatible.

Science claims that we all come from a common ancestor. That we and pigs have a common ancestor, for instance.

I am happy that religion is now compatible with science and understood that, too. Took a long time, but I am sincerely happy that you guys saw the photons, too, and abandoned that ridiculous creationism.

Ciao

- viole

Viole, please stop fooling yourself, or letting others fool you.
Science does not say that. Philosophy does.
I really hate to know you guys are doing this to yourselves... but it's your choice, of course.

Consider... and this is in response to @Wild Fox, but to all the other evolution believers.

First. Specifically to Wild Fox, who appears to be missing what my second post says.
Excepts of key points, and highlighted...

Spoiler: 2014 Study

2014 - The stripy stick insect that walked with dinosaurs
This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. "This dearth in the paleontological record makes assessments on the origin and age of the group problematic and impedes investigations of evolutionary key aspects, such as wing development, sexual size dimorphism and plant mimicry."

The insect, which has been named Cretophasmomima melanogramma, may have lacked some of the more complex features found in modern stick insects but it had already evolved the necessary basic structures.

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period.

"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.

Spoiler: 2019 Study

2019 - Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This [the current study] is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler...
38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals.

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

So finding fossils buried in a layer with other fossils dated to before 66 million years, was not enough to verify that stick insects 'evolved' before the Paleogene period (66–23.03 million years ago), but geographic distribution, and not one of the strongest forms of evidence - comparative anatomy, was used to determine that the stick insect 'evolved' after the dinosaur era, about 47 million years ago.

On the video - #2
Continuing from this point, one of the strongest forms of evidence is subjective opinion.
Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor.

Spoiler

This is another one of the evidences provided in the video. Pure assumption.
All vehicles have the same basic structure. Therefore all vehicles had the same maker. Come on, give me a medal nuh.

On the video - #3
Subjective opinion based on presumptions.
All cars carry various level of fuel. Therefore all cars must be related by manufacturer. The more similar. the closer. Do I get a medal? Come on, don't be closed fisted.

So many assumptions go into genome comparisons.

@Wild Fox, I don't want to pull up numerous examples, but the surprises are countless. This shrew only weighs an ounce but it's more like an elephant than a mouse

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says
...instead of gorillas being most similar to chimps and then humans in that portion of the DNA, the branches flip to humans being most similar to gorillas and then chimps.

So, you want to know how the fossil record supports creation. Actually it's not only the fossil record, it everything else.
Here is what we expect, as the various kinds of life-forms were created, with reproductive powers, and allowed to spread their genes... as stated in the Bible.

Spoiler: Support for creation

1. No evidence of simple organism to complex.
2. No evidence of non-vertebrate to vertebrate.
3. Fully formed complex organisms of most major groups of organisms, with the full body plan of all living and non-living organisms suddenly appearing in the lowest geological period.
4. No evidence of transition from one organism to another in the fossil record, or anywhere else, for that matter.
5. Little or no change in features, or traits, and many "living fossils".
6. Thousands of years with no observation of one kind of organism evolving to another kind.

On the other hand, these are what we do not expect to find if the idea of LUCA were true.
In fact, we expect to find this...

Spoiler: Lack of Support for Evolution

1.
From Simple To Complex
Despite their efforts, however, the origins of this intriguing phenomenon remain shrouded in mystery. Evolution and extinction over hundreds of millions of years have blurred the details of the transition, and the answers provided by genome sequencing only lead to more questions.

2.
Although the backbone is one of the most important innovations in the history of life, its origins have long been shrouded in mystery.
Speculations abound, sure enough.

3.
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
Considered a mystery.

4.
Debates over what is a transitional fossil, because this circumstantial evidence relies on subjective opinion.
Archaeopteryx continues to play an important part in scientific debates about the origin and evolution of birds.

5 & 6.
Living fossils: contentious but necessary? Whether it is horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, or gingko trees, taxa that allegedly display extraordinary levels of morphological stasis over geological time have called out for a special explanation since Darwin...

Actually, all the so-called evidence presented to try to support the LUCA idea, are subjective opinion, all conjecture from circumstantial evidence. Basically, they are all hypothetical.
The phylogenetic tree - a hypothesis.
The molecular evolutionary clock - a hypothesis.
Transitional fossils - a hypothesis.
Did I miss anything? Oops. How could I forget...
LUCA - a hypothesis.

There is no way, imo, one can know all of this, and not recognize that this is all philosophical, unless they are duped, deluded, or just plain emotionally attached to claims for their own personal desire - basically, it is in line with their selfish pursuits... imo.
To me, the most they have done is substitute an intelligent designer / creator for LUCA, but just as one can't prove God by natural mean, they can't prove LUCA, but they can block God and keep LUCA.
It's not science, plain and simple, but then again, perhaps it is... the 19th century and beyond science - where any assumption that supports the presumptions goes, basically. So if the evidence does not fit the theory, the theory can be modified to fit the evidence. If I did that, they would call me dishonest, a fraud and con man.

I just want to say, in conclusion, when we assume something to be true, we are really saying we suppose something to be the case, without proof.
For example, "The only things that exist are those that..." "Nothing of this sort can exist, or happen."
It seems to me, the only ones allowed to assume, in the minds of the anti-God, anti-miracles, anti-Christian, opinionated bias, are scientists. So to them it is wrong to point out that assumptions are not fact, or proof of anything.
However, it is right in their eyes to claim everything outside of their box is an assumption without merit.
Hilarious!

 

[Valjean]

It seems like magic to caveman science. Anything not in their little tiny box is magic to them.

Sorry, not following. Explain?

It posits the natural world as we now know it was responsible for creation of life. That is insanity, not magic.

It posits that life is a product of chemistry. We see chemistry every day. It's a familiar process. Why do you say chemistry is insanity?
Poofing piles of dust into fully formed organisms -- now that's magic. What's more believable, chemistry or magic? Which seems more insane?

Of course evolving would be observed as would be toe nails and teeth if all were part of creation. The prblem is that you prefer to leave God out of the picture and attribute life itself TO the created trait of adapting/evolving.

No! The process has been observed; the sequence; the change in form, not the final result. You have an extraordinary ability to completely miss the point.
"Adapting/evolving" isn't a trait, and it's not responsible for "life itself" as had been explained a hundred times. Adapting/evolving is a mechanism of change. As for my preference to leave God out, I also prefer to leave the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn out. Why complicate things with unneeded parts or agents? Better to keep things simple.

What is not observed is that life came from the evolving. That is religion.

Whoever said evolution produced life? How could there be evolution before there's life to evolve? Change came from evolving.
Are you confusing evolution with abiogenesis?
All this has been explained over and over, yet you still don't get it. You miss the point completely. Are you deliberately trolling, or do you really not get it?

It has a test built in. All who try Jesus will know if the things He says are true. I took the test. Millions did. It works. Then there is the fulfilled prophesy. Then there are the witnessed miracles...etc.

But Islam has the same test, and Sikhism, and Shinto, and miracles are reported all over the world. So how is this evidence of any particular religion?
What does it mean to "try" Jesus, and what is this "knowing?" You seem to be saying a feeling is evidence of a truth, but if that were the case why do people feel so many different truths?
Again, you don't seem to grasp the concept of evidence.

 

[Valjean]

It means we saw Jesus risen from the dead.

You were there? You saw this personally?
There is a report, in a book, that Jesus rose from the dead, but we have no first person accounts. There's also a report from another book that Aslan the lion rose from the dead. Why is one more authoritative than the other?

When we tap into the power we get results. Like turning on a light, you see the light, not the electricity that powers it.

How does one tap into this power? If the truth can be discovered so easily why doesn't everyone believe the same thing?

You don't. Why do you wave away witnessed history?

Because there is no witnessed history! There are no first person, witnessed accounts. There is only hearsay -- from a book. What makes the stories from this book any more reliable than those from other books of folklore?

The question that matters is whether God inspired it. If He is behind it then any bumps on the way are calculated into the mix!

The question is whether there is a god at all, inasmuch as there is no empirical evidence of him. There are only stories, and "feelings."

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. No evidence of simple organism to complex.
2. No evidence of non-vertebrate to vertebrate.
3. Fully formed complex organisms of most major groups of organisms, with the full body plan of all living and non-living organisms suddenly appearing in the lowest geological period.
4. No evidence of transition from one organism to another in the fossil record, or anywhere else, for that matter.
5. Little or no change in features, or traits, and many "living fossils".
6. Thousands of years with no observation of one kind of organism evolving to another kind.

Oh my! Someone still has no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

First off, even if your claims were true, and they are not, this would not be evidence for creation. Creation is not the default position. You keep shooting yourself in the foot by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the terms that you use.

1. You would need to define what you mean by "simple to complex". But this is clearly not true. We can see in the lab today how multicellular organisms may have evolved. Also you appear to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". Evidence is support for an idea. And there is plenty of it out there. In the sciences nothing is "proven". The fact that a rock falls is not "proof" of gravity. It is evidence for it since it agrees with the theory. The same applies to evolution. There are all sorts of observations that agree with the theory. That therefore is evidence for the theory. Having said that here is some reading material for you:

The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all | Science | AAAS

2. You really have no clue when you say this. For example the earliest "vertebrate" is arguably not a vertebrate since it has no actual bones:

Myllokunmingia - Wikipedia


" It appears to have a skull and skeletal structures made of cartilage. There is no sign of biomineralization of the skeletal elements."

Early fossils had to rely on extremely rare casts, such as we rarely have of jellyfish.

Again, this observation is what the theory predicts. It agrees with the theory. It is therefore evidence for the theory.

3. Fully formed? What the frack does that mean? Please don't use garbage terms they make your arguments self refuting. And no, they do not "appear suddenly" at any point. Vertebrates start with critters with no mineralized bones, but those develop as times goes on.

4. What? Almost all fossils are thought to be transitional today. It appears that your knowledge of fossils is over one hundred years out of date. Here is an educational video for you:

5. Simply wrong and unjustified. Even "living fossils" are often very different than their predecessors. Coelacanth is an excellent example. Creationists think that coelacanth is a species. It is not. It is an order. Think of it this way, when you think that all coelacanths are the same you just said that man is the same as a lemur.

6. That is because there is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You for example are still an ape. You are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, etc. and so on. There was no change of kind (except for perhaps when the first eukaryote formed from two cells developing a mutually beneficial relationship. You cannot refute a concept with a terribly flawed strawman.

 

[dad]

You were there? You saw this personally?
There is a report, in a book, that Jesus rose from the dead, but we have no first person accounts. There's also a report from another book that Aslan the lion rose from the dead. Why is one more authoritative than the other?

Were you at Waterloo? Does that mean either that you are Napoleon or that there was no Napoleon?

Hundreds of people witnessing something and may dying to attest to what they saw is not some 'report'.

How does one tap into this power? If the truth can be discovered so easily why doesn't everyone believe the same thing?

The verse told us. If we do what He said, we will know. What He askes is that we believe and ask Him into our lives.

Because there is no witnessed history! There are no first person, witnessed accounts. There is only hearsay -- from a book. What makes the stories from this book any more reliable than those from other books of folklore?

Nonsense. Jesus had followers, and relatives, one for example that became a leader in the early church.

The question is whether there is a god at all,

Not really. Creation shouts out that there is.

inasmuch as there is no empirical evidence of him

Empirical is just a silly buzz term for fitting into your religious boxed beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Then can you please explain what you meant when you said...

I'll try to explain as simple as I can.

"I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept."

Natural selection is a result.
The result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity results in natural selection.
Natural selection = variation + differential reproduction + heredity
or... variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection.
So variation, differential reproduction, and heredity produces or gives birth to natural selection.

Natural selection acts on one of its components.
To act on something means, to do something because of said thing.
So for natural selection to act on variation, it must do something because of, or based on the variation.

I wanted to know how the result could act on one of the components that produced it.

I understand... I think... what they are saying - that the result though mindless, "thinks" about what to do with what it gets, and what would be best. Am i misunderstanding what they are saying?

​

What specifically is confusing you?


Then I'm still confused as to what you meant when you said "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?" Can you explain?

No need to... again. I explained. How do you read?

It all depends on the specifics. Every situation is unique and has its own set of variables, so it's not really appropriate to make definitive, sweeping statements based on vague hypotheticals.

I gave you the specifics.
It was not a "sweeping statements based on vague hypotheticals".
Again, how do you read?
I remember how it was on "The Watchmaker" thread.
Perhaps you get so distracted when talking to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you don't hear, or understand a word they say. What, or who do you think may be distracting you Fly?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'll try to explain as simple as I can.

"I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept."

Natural selection is a result.
The result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity results in natural selection.
Natural selection = variation + differential reproduction + heredity
or... variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection.
So variation, differential reproduction, and heredity produces or gives birth to natural selection.

Natural selection acts on one of its components.
To act on something means, to do something because of said thing.
So for natural selection to act on variation, it must do something because of, or based on the variation.

I wanted to know how the result could act on one of the components that produced it.

I understand... I think... what they are saying - that the result though mindless, "thinks" about what to do with what it gets, and what would be best. Am i misunderstanding what they are saying?

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.

But either way, I'm still not sure what your larger point is, since natural selection is something we readily observe all the time. So no matter what specific verbiage is used to describe it, it's still a very real thing.

No need to... again. I explained.

Then I must have missed it (note, I don't always read all your posts to everyone). Could you either link me to where you explained what you meant by "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions" or restate the explanation?

How do you read?

Look.....the last time we interacted, one of the reasons you cited for ignoring me was that you felt I was getting personal. So now I am making sure to steer clear of personal comments in my replies to you. So given that you are the one who's expressed angst over personal comments, I would expect you to avoid using them yourself.

Understand?

I gave you the specifics.
It was not a "sweeping statements based on vague hypotheticals".

And I answered.....that's how science works (when new, better data comes in scientists adjust their work accordingly). Why is that a problem for you?

Perhaps you get so distracted when talking to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you don't hear, or understand a word they say. What, or who do you think may be distracting you Fly?

According to you Witnesses, it's probably Satan.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can you explain what you mean by, "Small changes just happen"?

The process of copying DNA strands is not 100% perfect. Transcription errors happen. Those errors may result in differences in offspring from the parents. Often, those changes are detrimental (see Down's Syndrome in humans), or even catastrophic, which can lead to immediate death. Occasionally, those changes can be beneficial, offering the offspring increased chances at survival and procreative ability.

Can you also explain what you mean by "when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for"?

This couldn't be simpler...you are letting the word "selected" lead you where you needn't go. It just means that any inheritable change which provides a reproductive advantage to a small part of a given, stable population will, by simple arithmetic, make up a larger and larger segment of that population, until eventually it is in the majority or even eventually even the only remaining population. That is, the unaltered form eventually is overwhelmed until it disappears altogether when there are no more breeding pairs to pass it on.

You will notice, here, that nothing nor noone is actually doing any selecting. They're just reproducing and dying, as all things do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll try to explain as simple as I can.

"I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept."

Natural selection is a result.
The result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity results in natural selection.
Natural selection = variation + differential reproduction + heredity
or... variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection.
So variation, differential reproduction, and heredity produces or gives birth to natural selection.

Natural selection acts on one of its components.
To act on something means, to do something because of said thing.
So for natural selection to act on variation, it must do something because of, or based on the variation.

I wanted to know how the result could act on one of the components that produced it.

I understand... I think... what they are saying - that the result though mindless, "thinks" about what to do with what it gets, and what would be best. Am i misunderstanding what they are saying?

​

No need to... again. I explained. How do you read?


I gave you the specifics.
It was not a "sweeping statements based on vague hypotheticals".
Again, how do you read?
I remember how it was on "The Watchmaker" thread.
Perhaps you get so distracted when talking to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you don't hear, or understand a word they say. What, or who do you think may be distracting you Fly?

I have highlighted your error in red. Natural selection is not a result -- natural selection is process (or perhaps better, the result of the processes) within a dynamical system.

The dynamical system is reproduction with variation. The input is the genetic makeup of parents, the results are offspring and their ability to survive and reproduce themselves in the current environment, based on the genetic makeup inherited from parents. Offspring that leave more offspring of their own will pass on that new genetic makeup to more of the next generation than others in the group that don't possess that advantage. Over many generations, simple arithmetic explains why the percentage of the population containing the new genetic makeup increases until eventually becoming (almost) the only breeding stock still present.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suppose you are not going to tell me how it is incorrect. Okay.

@Subduction Zone has done so for me. You said "he farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics."

This is, of course, completely incorrect. Yes, the farmer may select species -- he may decide to raise cattle, sheep or pigs, as they are all species. But you cannot breed cattle with sheep, nor sheep with pigs, so you cannot get anything better or new out of trying to do so.

But let's take the example of the cattle farmer, and in this case, a particular breed called "Belgian Blue," a double-muscled variant that produces a mountain of good beef per animal.

"The breed originated in central and upper Belgium in the 19th century, from crossing local breeds with a Shorthorn breed of cattle from the United Kingdom.[6]:256 Charolais cattle possibly were cross-bred, as well.[6]:256 Belgian Blue cattle were first used as a dairy and beef breed. The modern beef breed was developed in the 1950s by Professor Hanset, working at an artificial insemination centre in Liege province. The breed's characteristic gene mutation was maintained through linebreeding to the point where the condition was a fixed property in the Belgian Blue breed.[5] In 1978, Belgian Blue cattle were introduced to the United States by Nick Tutt, a farmer from central Canada who immigrated to West Texas and showed the cattle to universities in the region." (Source Wikipedia: Belgian Blue - Wikipedia)

So if you read that, you see that all of the animals selected were of the same species (bos, or cattle), with animals chosen for the heritable contribution to the desired new variant of that species.

 

[nPeace]

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.

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

But either way, I'm still not sure what your larger point is, since natural selection is something we readily observe all the time. So no matter what specific verbiage is used to describe it, it's still a very real thing.

I accept natural selection, and it works fine, but not like the magic being proposed in many cases.
So yes, misleading statement, are a big thing to me.

Then I must have missed it (note, I don't always read all your posts to everyone). Could you either link me to where you explained what you meant by "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions" or restate the explanation?

Okay. I never disagreed. I just though it was kind of careless not to mention how they add us up, as it can be misinterpreted.

Look.....the last time we interacted, one of the reasons you cited for ignoring me was that you felt I was getting personal. So now I am making sure to steer clear of personal comments in my replies to you. So given that you are the one who's expressed angst over personal comments, I would expect you to avoid using them yourself.

Understand?

You are right. Sorry.

And I answered.....that's how science works (when new, better data comes in scientists adjust their work accordingly). Why is that a problem for you?

Because it seems you missed the point, or you are ignoring it... it seems.

According to you Witnesses, it's probably Satan.

No comment.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Really?
Preternatural vs Dark Matter
The Good in Bad Science
And that's only a few, out of a lot.
Sadly, the LUCA is only taught as science because it has political props.

I wonder why you hate science so much. Of course, we should probably wonder President McKinley's doctors wouldn't listen to either Lister or Alexander Graham Bell, who could both have saved his life, except that those same doctors thought they knew everything, and refused to hear anything that contradicted what they already thought.

You can find that story about McKinley's death in the book "Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President" by Candice Millard. I found it a fascinating read.

 

[nPeace]

I have highlighted your error in red. Natural selection is not a result -- natural selection is process (or perhaps better, the result of the processes) within a dynamical system.

The dynamical system is reproduction with variation. The input is the genetic makeup of parents, the results are offspring and their ability to survive and reproduce themselves in the current environment, based on the genetic makeup inherited from parents. Offspring that leave more offspring of their own will pass on that new genetic makeup to more of the next generation than others in the group that don't possess that advantage. Over many generations, simple arithmetic explains why the percentage of the population containing the new genetic makeup increases until eventually becoming (almost) the only breeding stock still present.

So this information is wrong, and I should stop using it, and listen to you instead... Misconceptions about natural selection

@Subduction Zone has done so for me. You said "he farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics."

This is, of course, completely incorrect. Yes, the farmer may select species -- he may decide to raise cattle, sheep or pigs, as they are all species. But you cannot breed cattle with sheep, nor sheep with pigs, so you cannot get anything better or new out of trying to do so.

But let's take the example of the cattle farmer, and in this case, a particular breed called "Belgian Blue," a double-muscled variant that produces a mountain of good beef per animal.

"The breed originated in central and upper Belgium in the 19th century, from crossing local breeds with a Shorthorn breed of cattle from the United Kingdom.[6]:256 Charolais cattle possibly were cross-bred, as well.[6]:256 Belgian Blue cattle were first used as a dairy and beef breed. The modern beef breed was developed in the 1950s by Professor Hanset, working at an artificial insemination centre in Liege province. The breed's characteristic gene mutation was maintained through linebreeding to the point where the condition was a fixed property in the Belgian Blue breed.[5] In 1978, Belgian Blue cattle were introduced to the United States by Nick Tutt, a farmer from central Canada who immigrated to West Texas and showed the cattle to universities in the region." (Source Wikipedia: Belgian Blue - Wikipedia)

So if you read that, you see that all of the animals selected were of the same species (bos, or cattle), with animals chosen for the heritable contribution to the desired new variant of that species.

So because I said species and not animal, or plant, or ... I am 100% wrong...

 

[nPeace]

I wonder why you hate science so much. Of course, we should probably wonder President McKinley's doctors wouldn't listen to either Lister or Alexander Graham Bell, who could both have saved his life, except that those same doctors thought they knew everything, and refused to hear anything that contradicted what they already thought.

You can find that story about McKinley's death in the book "Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President" by Candice Millard. I found it a fascinating read.

You are of course mistaken. That's like saying, "I wonder why you hate counterfeit money so much?" No I don't hate science, nor money.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So this information is wrong, and I should stop using it, and listen to you instead... Misconceptions about natural selection

I suppose you could listen to me -- or you could read the link that YOU YOURSELF actually posted, which says the same thing that I said! Here it is, from you own link:

"Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem."

So because I said species and not animal, or plant, or ... I am 100% wrong...

Yes, because the words you used have meanings, and those meanings, in the context in which you used them were simply wrong. In fact, it's more than that -- you 100% REVERSED the reality when you said "the farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics." That is exactly and perfectly backwards. He selects individuals within a species with desirable characteristics, so as to breed variants within the species that have those characteristics instead of other, less desirable ones.