What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Oh! I see.
First, they were "lucky," (Reply # 1263) now they're "selected."
Definition:

se·lect

   
–verb (used with object) 1. to choose in preference to another or others; pick out.


–verb (used without object) 2. to make a choice; pick.


–adjective 3. chosen in preference to another or others; selected.

4. choice; of special value or excellence.

5. careful or fastidious in selecting; discriminating.

6. carefully or fastidiously chosen; exclusive."
Nature does not work at our every whim.
Which is it?
Can't have it both ways.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

"Lucky" is not a scientific term. It's your term. Obviously, the one oyster that survived was selected by nature, due to its fitness. Are you starting to get it now?

Luck, in the sense of randomness, also plays a role, but gets averaged out over the long haul. If you don't see why, I'll try to explain it to you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Wilsoncole:
"His work has proved that mutations have never produced new species."

But this line of resoning does nothing for the understanding of (Nylon Eating Bacteria). A mutation happened that allowed this particular bacteria to digest the nylon byproduct...thus becoming a "NEW SPECIES".......

 

[camanintx]

You wouldn't be saying that if you were able to quickly dispatch the information I present. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a myth and does not exist in nature. My information proves it.

You still haven't shown where the "law of recurrent variation" exists other than on Lönnig's own web site.

 

[wilsoncole]

You're not the brightest, are you.

I admit - I am not!

Survival of the fittest does not mean that those "not fit to survive" die out. It simply means that, on average, the members of a particular species that are more fit to survive in certain environments will tend to reproduce more successfully than those that are not.
Do you understand the difference?

Twist the words all you want whenever it suits you, but that is not what the encyclopedia says.
I wish you and others would stop trying to "teach" me what evolution is and what fitness means. I know what it means:
"The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.
Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness."
theory of evolution - encyclopedia article about theory of evolution.
That's what it says!
Contrary to what you say, "an organism's ability to survive" means not dying out - right?
But I see a problem here:
If an organism has the right genes and could survive well as described above, why would its offspring be "too small and weak to survive?" Why would it be unable to pass on those fit genes to "the next generation?"
Here, I must ask:
If an animal wandered in a valley where predators are not present and food is abundant, is it surviving because it is fit, or because it has no enemies and abundant food? The jaguar, for example, has no predators to fear and has abundant food supplies. Disease often kills, or misses, fit and unfit. This animal's "ability to survive" is not threatened. Why does he survive and where does "fitness" come in?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I admit - I am not!

Twist the words all you want whenever it suits you, but that is not what the encyclopedia says.
I wish you and others would stop trying to "teach" me what evolution is and what fitness means. I know what it means:
"The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.
Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness."
theory of evolution - encyclopedia article about theory of evolution.
That's what it says!
Contrary to what you say, "an organism's ability to survive" means not dying out - right?

You missed the whole point in the description. Just because an organism "survives" means little it it is unsuccessful in passing on it's genes. You highlighted what you wanted and came full stop even though the rest of the description says exactly what ImmortalFlame said. "Surviving" is one thing but you have to be able to pass on your genes. Surviving is part of it but not the whole picture.


ImmortalFlame said;

Survival of the fittest does not mean that those "not fit to survive" die out. It simply means that, on average, the members of a particular species that are more fit to survive in certain environments will tend to reproduce more successfully than those that are not.

Your description says;

The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism. Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation. However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness."

I see no problem in his/her statement and it's pretty much spot on with the mainstream description you gave...

 

[camanintx]

But I see a problem here:
If an organism has the right genes and could survive well as described above, why would its offspring be "too small and weak to survive?" Why would it be unable to pass on those fit genes to "the next generation?"

I think the problem here is that you're viewing "fitness" as a static property when it is not. What may make an organism "fit" one moment may be totally unsuitable the next. For millions of years, dinosaurs were the fittest organisms in their environment until a meteor strike wiped them out.

Here, I must ask:
If an animal wandered in a valley where predators are not present and food is abundant, is it surviving because it is fit, or because it has no enemies and abundant food? The jaguar, for example, has no predators to fear and has abundant food supplies. Disease often kills, or misses, fit and unfit. This animal's "ability to survive" is not threatened. Why does he survive and where does "fitness" come in?

Wouldn't a jaguar that is more resistant to disease be considered more "fit"? After all, evolution selected for sickle cell anemia because it makes one more fit by increasing their resistance to malaria.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I admit - I am not!

Well then, at least you're not as deluded as a large portion of posters on these forums.

Twist the words all you want whenever it suits you, but that is not what the encyclopedia says.
I wish you and others would stop trying to "teach" me what evolution is and what fitness means. I know what it means:
"The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.
Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness."
theory of evolution - encyclopedia article about theory of evolution.
That's what it says!

Correct. Only you're choosing to ignore a crucial part of it:

It says: "Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce".

See, that "and reproduce" part changes the entire emphasis of the statement. At no point does it say "everything that is fitter than others to survive will", which seems to be what you were claiming earlier. If something is more fit to survive in an environment than another living creature of the same species, it stands a higher chance of surviving and procreating than the other does. This does not mean that the other creature that isn't as fit to survive doesn't survive and reproduce either, it simply means that the creature that is fitter is more likely to survive. When you repeat this process after hundreds, thousands or millions of generations, that's when natural selection starts to make noticeable changes.

So, to review, it's not a question of "fit" and "unfit" to survive and reproduce, it's a question of the "fitter" surviving and reproducing more often. Understood?

Contrary to what you say, "an organism's ability to survive" means not dying out - right?

No, it means it's success in surviving and reproducing. That does not mean "not dying" since there is never any guarantee that an organism more fit to survive in a given environment won't die or reproduce successfully anyway. It's about being more likely to survive and reproduce, not always surviving.

But I see a problem here:
If an organism has the right genes and could survive well as described above, why would its offspring be "too small and weak to survive?" Why would it be unable to pass on those fit genes to "the next generation?"

That was to demonstrate how fitness is not measured by amount of offspring, since there is still a chance a species carrying mutations that make it more fit to survive will not successfully reproduce, or produce offspring that are too weak to survive. It at no point indicated that this was always the case, nor a rule of thumb.

Here, I must ask:
If an animal wandered in a valley where predators are not present and food is abundant, is it surviving because it is fit, or because it has no enemies and abundant food? The jaguar, for example, has no predators to fear and has abundant food supplies. Disease often kills, or misses, fit and unfit. This animal's "ability to survive" is not threatened. Why does he survive and where does "fitness" come in?

Ability to find food, ability to find and attract a mate, ability to mate and procreate successfully. Fitness is about a lot more than just surviving, it's about surviving and reproducing successfully.

For example, the peacock developed intricate plumage to help attract a suitable mate, thus increasing it's chances of procreating and increasing it's fitness, even if the plumage it grew easily attracted predators. In an area where there were few or no predators, natural selection selects from those that procreate more.

 

[wilsoncole]

You still haven't shown where the "law of recurrent variation" exists other than on Lönnig's own web site.

Nor am I going to. Why should I?
I said nothing about it - did I?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

You wouldn't be saying that if you were able to quickly dispatch the information I present. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a myth and does not exist in nature. My information proves it

No, your latest source says it does happen. If you are going to use a source you can't ignore the source when he says you are wrong.

"During the summer, an oyster lays about 500 million eggs within the water to be fertilized by the male's sperm. Soon after that a pinhead sized larva swim around and hatch contained by about ten hours. In two days, shells initiate to form and two weeks later pea-sized "spat" sink to the bottom. Living on its hollowed out shell, the oyster grows one inch a year. Adults can live to be ten years ripened and reproduce billions of times. With so many predators of the oyster, singular about one within a million will survive."

So every year 1 oyster can give rise to 500 offspring that survive to maturity. That means that their chosen reproductive method is hugely successful according to your unnamed source.

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

• Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
  Evolution of Living Organism
  Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

If you claim this is a quote-mine, you have the name of the book, tell me what it was that Grasse actually said.

Yes its a quote mine.

That is because the phrase "There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." does not occur on page 103.

Here's a quote for you:

Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.3

Grasse did not dispute that evolution occurrs.

 

[wilsoncole]

You missed the whole point in the description. Just because an organism "survives" means little it it is unsuccessful in passing on it's genes.

What manner of nonsense is that?
Now - look at what YOU missed:
How could you term an organism as "surviving" IF it cannot "pass on its genes?"

"Surviving" is one thing but you have to be able to pass on your genes. Surviving is part of it but not the whole picture.

You just don't get it! No living organism can survive if it is unable to "pass on its genes." Surviving IS the whole picture because it means "passsing on its genes."
Put another way - passing on its genes means survival - period!

You highlighted what you wanted and came full stop even though the rest of the description says exactly what ImmortalFlame said.

And you are so eager to contradict me that you jumped to a conclusion without getting the sense of the discussion and end up contradicting yourself.

ImmortalFlame said;

Your description says;

I see no problem in his/her statement and it's pretty much spot on with the mainstream description you gave...

Not MY problem, man.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What manner of nonsense is that?
Now - look at what YOU missed:
How could you term an organism as "surviving" IF it cannot "pass on its genes?"

You just don't get it! No living organism can survive if it is unable to "pass on its genes." Surviving IS the whole picture because it means "passsing on its genes."
Put another way - passing on its genes means survival - period!

You seem to be (intentionally or otherwise) mixing up the meaning of "survival" and "fitness". Either that, or you're just playing a childish word game.

 

[outhouse]

you're just playing a childish word game.

they both do this on purpose.

they have no facts only uneducated beliefs, they have to resort to games

 

[wilsoncole]

I think the problem here is that you're viewing "fitness" as a static property when it is not. What may make an organism "fit" one moment may be totally unsuitable the next. For millions of years, dinosaurs were the fittest organisms in their environment until a meteor strike wiped them out.

You can believe that - I don't!

Wouldn't a jaguar that is more resistant to disease be considered more "fit"?

"More fit" than what? If they, the D/R one and the prone, are both surviving, I see no real longevity advantage.

After all, evolution selected for sickle cell anemia because it makes one more fit by increasing their resistance to malaria.

YOU can believe that - I don't! I don't think natural selection had anything to do with it.
"It is believed that sickle cell provides resistance, to individuals living in malaria - endemic regions, against the malarial parasite. The various explanations given for the association between sickle cell trait and malaria are as follows: ......More research is required to get a conclusive explanation for the association of sickle cell, in areas with high incidence of malaria."
Sickle Cell and Malaria

"Carriers of the sickle cell trait are to a large extent resistant to malaria. Compared to non-carriers, they have approximately 1/10 the risk of dying from infection by the most deadly species of malaria parasite. Nevertheless, carriers are not completely protected from the disease and experts recommend that they still take precautions against malaria........The price for the carriers' advantage, though, is that some of their children are born with Sickle Cell Anemia."
https://www.23andme.com/health/Sickle-Cell-Anemia-Malaria-Resistance/howitworks/

I wonder if you would thank "natural selection" for protecting you from malaria while afflicting you with Sickle-Cell anemia.
You probably don't know what living with that is like.
I could supply you with life-stories of persons with the disease.
You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.
Something to brag about?
I don't think so!

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

"Lucky" is not a scientific term. It's your term.

NO! It's YOUR term:
Reply # 1263:
As the man said: Did nature pick that single oyster because it simply was the fittest?
Autodidact: "No, nature didn't pick anything. Because it was more fit--and luckier--it survived. Obviously, the one oyster that survived was selected by nature, due to its fitness. Are you starting to get it now?

Luck, in the sense of randomness, also plays a role, but gets averaged out over the long haul. If you don't see why, I'll try to explain it to you.

There is no such thing as "luck." "Averaged out" by whom? Are you hinting at some "higher power" here?
Besides - how can something be random and yet be selected?
Its not me who's playing with words.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

But this line of resoning does nothing for the understanding of (Nylon Eating Bacteria). A mutation happened that allowed this particular bacteria to digest the nylon byproduct...thus becoming a "NEW SPECIES".......

Nonsense!
Bacteria are classified.
You have Xenobacteria, Planctomycetes, Cyanobacteria, etc.
They remain within their classification so that you can identify E.Coli from salmonella.
That is just an example of variation within the species. Just like the variety of dogs and humans.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Well then, at least you're not as deluded as a large portion of posters on these forums.

Correct. Only you're choosing to ignore a crucial part of it:

It says: "Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce".

See, that "and reproduce" part changes the entire emphasis of the statement. At no point does it say "everything that is fitter than others to survive will", which seems to be what you were claiming earlier. If something is more fit to survive in an environment than another living creature of the same species, it stands a higher chance of surviving and procreating than the other does. This does not mean that the other creature that isn't as fit to survive doesn't survive and reproduce either, it simply means that the creature that is fitter is more likely to survive. When you repeat this process after hundreds, thousands or millions of generations, that's when natural selection starts to make noticeable changes.

You have absolutely no way of proving that. That's the theory part.

So, to review, it's not a question of "fit" and "unfit" to survive and reproduce, it's a question of the "fitter" surviving and reproducing more often. Understood?

Surviving means reproducing. Understood?

No, it means it's success in surviving and reproducing

.
Surviving MEANS reproducing. Understood?

That does not mean "not dying" since there is never any guarantee that an organism more fit to survive in a given environment won't die or reproduce successfully anyway.

That's a ridiculous statement! No creature can reproduce UNsuccessfully.

It's about being more likely to survive and reproduce, not always surviving.

Surviving means reproducing - understood?

That was to demonstrate how fitness is not measured by amount of offspring, since there is still a chance a species carrying mutations that make it more fit to survive will not successfully reproduce, or produce offspring that are too weak to survive.

Mutations always weaken the original organism. It does not lend itself to any improvement in the organism. Experiments with Drosophilia proved it. Experiments with plants proved it. Microevolution does not lead to Macroevolution. You have absolutely no evidence that proves it. Only theory.

It at no point indicated that this was always the case, nor a rule of thumb.

You lost me there, fella.

Ability to find food, ability to find and attract a mate, ability to mate and procreate successfully. Fitness is about a lot more than just surviving, it's about surviving and reproducing successfully.

You just insist on talking nonsense. It is said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I told you already and I'm telling you again:
No organism can survive and reproduce Unsuccessfully. IT IS ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL.
Your entire conversation heavily presupposes evolution takes place and you frame your thoughts and words to suit that mentality.
I think I know why you insist on this "reproducing" kick. That's because you believe that the mechanisms for morphology is in the reproduction. It is only a belief.

For example, the peacock developed intricate plumage to help attract a suitable mate, thus increasing it's chances of procreating and increasing it's fitness, even if the plumage it grew easily attracted predators.

That is even more nonsense. The peacock didn't DEVELOP anything! It does not know HOW it got its feathers and colors. The giraffe didn't develop its long neck.
Did you "develop" fingers? Why did they stop growing at the right length?
Did you develop eyes? Or the ability to ENJOY life? These things never came on slowly. Understood?

In an area where there were few or no predators, natural selection selects from those that procreate more.

In those areas "natural selection" is unemployed.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

If the fossil record, the subject of this thread, does not provide empirical evidence of Creationism, the the Creationist must change the subject and appeal to the authority of a handful of outdated and misinformed sources in a very weak attempt to attack evolutionary biology.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were able to quickly dispatch the information I present. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a myth and does not exist in nature. My information proves it.
Outdated?
"During the summer, an oyster lays about 500 million eggs within the water to be fertilized by the male's sperm. Soon after that a pinhead sized larva swim around and hatch contained by about ten hours. In two days, shells initiate to form and two weeks later pea-sized "spat" sink to the bottom. Living on its hollowed out shell, the oyster grows one inch a year. Adults can live to be ten years ripened and reproduce billions of times. With so many predators of the oyster, singular about one within a million will survive."
What is the average number of eggs laid by the feminine American Oyster per year?

As the man said: Did nature pick that single oyster because it simply was the fittest?

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

• Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
  Evolution of Living Organism
  Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

If you claim this is a quote-mine, you have the name of the book, tell me what it was that Grasse actually said.

"Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather - as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?" (Litinski - NATURAL SELECTION



So - quit making excuses and provide effective refutation.

Thank you for proving my point.:yes:

 

[tumbleweed41]

I reject evolution totally...

Yes, it is clear you reject the core basics of biology, but what I really want to know is...

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence of Creationism?

 

[wilsoncole]

Fitness means "more likely to survive."

Says who?
Those off-the-cuff definitions are for the birds.
fit·ness
1. health.
2. capability of the body of distributing inhaled oxygen to muscle tissue during increased physical effort.
3. Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .
a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.

b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.
Says nothing there about "more likely to survive." You really never give me a reason to believe you, so I don't.l

Therefore, those that are more likely to survive are more fit. Those that are not as fit survive at a lower rate, so their genes do not get propagated as much. Get it? It's not that complicated.

"Propagated as much" my foot! How do you think they got here? Propagation of - what? Why, Genes, of course.

It's really very simple.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What manner of nonsense is that?
Now - look at what YOU missed:
How could you term an organism as "surviving" IF it cannot "pass on its genes?"

Shucks, you can "survive" but you will not be able to further your bloodline if you are unable or fail to procreate. But "survival of the fittest" or (survival of the fit) isn't strictly about living or strength.

You just don't get it! No living organism can survive if it is unable to "pass on its genes." Surviving IS the whole picture because it means "passsing on its genes."
Put another way - passing on its genes means survival - period!

I get it for sure and this is partly what (Natural Selection) is.

And you are so eager to contradict me that you jumped to a conclusion without getting the sense of the discussion and end up contradicting yourself.

Actually I didn't...because ImmortalFlame reiterated what I said in hs/her response to you...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2352735-post1287.html