What can evolution really do?

[Skeptisch]

Evolution is the sum of many natural processes, not a single actor. wa:do

There is also a thing called natural selection…or do you think it is “supernatural” selection? :sarcastic

 

[painted wolf]

There is also a thing called natural selection…or do you think it is “supernatural” selection? :sarcastic

You're cute.

Do you need me to define "Natural Selection" for you.... ok, "Natural Selection" is basically differential survival and differential reproduction.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people don't understand "natural selection" any more than they do evolution as a whole. They simply see a set of "magic words"... ignoring the actual mechanisms behind it. Which is why I try to explain "natural selection" without the use of the "magic words".

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

You're cute.

Do you need me to define "Natural Selection" for you.... ok, "Natural Selection" is basically differential survival and differential reproduction.

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people don't understand "natural selection" any more than they do evolution as a whole. They simply see a set of "magic words"... ignoring the actual mechanisms behind it. Which is why I try to explain "natural selection" without the use of the "magic words".

I find the mechanisms to be the most interesting & compelling thing.

 

[bobhikes]

How I value Evolution

Evolution is a way of thought. The though process can be very useful in understanding the world around you. Because of that understanding you can change your enviroment hopefully for the better.

Things would still come into being without the evolution thought process but it would take much longer.

 

[painted wolf]

I find the mechanisms to be the most interesting & compelling thing.

Same here, it's amazing the combination of interacting forces that drive evolution. From intentional selection (like sexual selection )to totally random stochastic events like fires. Though my current favorite is the dance between hosts and their parasites. It's incredible how much of our natural history is influenced by parasites, both symbiotic and antagonistic.

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

You're cute.

You are cute too, painted wolf. :bunny:

Doesn’t “natural selection” stand quite nicely on its own, no “magic words” needed? On the other hand words like Heterozygosity and Phenotypic plasticity may not mean much for many readers.

It is interesting how, even in biology, there are scientists who are able to believe in a supernatural deity or spirituality (Francis Collins, maybe you painted wolf) while others (Dawkins and Gould among them) are unable to seriously entertain the thought of a supernatural “something” that concerns itself with the wellbeing of us humans.

 

[painted wolf]

You are cute too, painted wolf. :bunny:

Doesn’t “natural selection” stand quite nicely on its own, no “magic words” needed?

My point is that "natural selection" for many people is essentially the "magic words" of evolution. That by merely invoking "natural selection" they can conjure something specific. For example, I had already listed the features of natural selection and yet, since I didn't use the "magic words", you assumed I had simply ignored it... and suggested I implied a supernatural actor.

This renders the term "natural selection" useless other than as an empty slogan IMHO.

On the other hand words like Heterozygosity and Phenotypic plasticity may not mean much for many readers.

Much of evolution isn't understood... which is my point. Evolution isn't simply summed up by the magic words "natural selection"... to actually understand the thing, you need to learn about it.

Natural selection needs "something to select"... it isn't a magic process that shapes living things willy nilly or ex nihilo. Therefore simply appealing to "natural selection" is an empty explanation ... an invocation of "magic words" as it were.

It is interesting how, even in biology, there are scientists who are able to believe in a supernatural deity or spirituality (Francis Collins, maybe you painted wolf) while others (Dawkins and Gould among them) are unable to seriously entertain the thought of a supernatural “something” that concerns itself with the wellbeing of us humans.

That is because evolution (or any aspect of biology) has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of "God".
Spirituality and faith are not scientific endeavors.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

This renders the term "natural selection" useless other than as an empty slogan IMHO.

I disagree.
"Natural selection" is an umbrella term used to save time and space from having to write out and explain everything that it covers.
At least, for those who actually know what the term means...

 

[Gunfingers]

Hey, i've got an idea, let's give up on trying to argue the nuances of biology with the biologist. I don't think we'll win.

 

[painted wolf]

I disagree.
"Natural selection" is an umbrella term used to save time and space from having to write out and explain everything that it covers.
At least, for those who actually know what the term means...

my point exactly... I have learned not to assume that people actually understand the term. Especially in discussions like this.

I use the term freely when talking to those who I know understand it.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Hey, i've got an idea, let's give up on trying to argue the nuances of biology with the biologist. I don't think we'll win.

LoL... you guys have to keep me on my toes somehow! I can't keep answering the same three creationist mistakes or I'll go spare.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Can evolution produce a human, a dog, or a bat?

Yep.

We see bats in the fossil record with no known ancestry...

Wrong.

and they look just like the bats of today. Could it be that scientists so accept evolution to be true that they don’t even test or verify it?

No.

There is suspicion that evolution cannot do two things at one time...

No there isn't.

...and multiple things would need to be done at the same time to go from fish to amphibian or reptile.

No, they wouldn't.

Scientists see micro-evolution, such as evolution of anti-biotic resistance and resistance to pesticides, so they infer macro-evolution, such as the larger things, the large leaps, fish to amphibian, reptile to mammal, “if you take a lot of small steps you get a long way”.

Apart from your meaningless designation "micro-evolution", YES! You have one single valid point: a lot of small steps take you a long way.

However there is no direct evidence for that.

Incorrect.

To critical thinkers or skeptics of evolution...

Come again?

... the jump to macro-evolution from micro-evolution is hard to swallow

So you think you can drive to your mailbox, but not to Alaska, and you think that oddly arbitrary distinction makes you a "critical thinker". Fascinating.

because multiple things have to happen before you can produce any useful cellular machines. Richard Lenski’s long term e. Coli experiment has produced 50,000 generations and they are still e-coli with no fins or arms, no legs or fingers, no limbs, no eyes, no heart, etc…

“And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.”

“When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. "Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
http://www.discovery.org/v/341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Bla bla bla.

How long have you been here, MoF? Arguing for your cult's ludicrous creation story against the much more substantiated mainstream view, as described to you by a veritable battalion of educated, informed, patient and generous people who actually understand evolution, day after day, post after post? How is it you've managed to learn not one single thing about the theory of evolution, what it is, what it predicts, the mountains of evidence that support it and the style of inquiry that produced it?

Now that is a bona fide miracle, and I certainly want nothing to do with any deity inclined to produce miracles such as this.

 

[Skeptisch]

That is because evolution (or any aspect of biology) has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of "God".

The existence or non-existence of a supernatural God lies at the heart of everything. The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs in the same TAB or temporary agnosticism box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.

 

[painted wolf]

The existence or non-existence of a supernatural God lies at the heart of everything. The existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs in the same TAB or temporary agnosticism box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.

How does one test something that is untestable?

Science deals with what can be measured, manipulated and reproduced. Just as a deity can not be invoked to explain science, it also remains untestable. It is fundamentally unscientific. The existence of something beyond the natural is a philosophical topic.

Not that this has anything to do with the OP.

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

The existence of something beyond the natural is a philosophical topic.

If we ever do discover something beyond the natural universe then it is hoped it would be something that could eventually be understood using science and embraced as natural.
But you are right, that’s not for this OP. Have a nice weekend, cutie olarbaby:.