Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[leibowde84]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

When someone refers to "the theory of evolution" without further clarification, they are almost certainly referring to natural selection.

 

[Zosimus]

"Species" is just a convenient handle. It has no definitive biological determinant. Given a population, biological 'splitters' will see multiple species, while 'lumpers' will see just one. Sometimes different species can interbreed. Sometimes very similar species can't. Sometimes rather different-looking organisms are actually the same species.
-- And at what point do ring populations become different species?

Species is an artificial concept that does not match up with the real world. It is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Segev Moran]

No. One might easily be referring to horizontal gene transfer.
If that's true, then evolution is dogmatic rather than a scientific theory.

Since evolution merely means change, are you saying that natural selection is the only thing that causes change? What about genetic drift?

No...Your mixing it up i think...

Evolution is the concept. It is the understanding that species evolve as time passes by. Evolution is not the mechanism rather the process...
Natural selection is a term to explain that the survival of a species is a process that happens in a natural way without an external unnatural intervention (Like ehmmm.. what was it.. oh.. GOD)

So we have the understanding of evolution, and we know that the evolved species that gets to pass on it's genes is a "winner" by the natural selection...

Now lets take the fact that beings evolve and only some of the evolved species are to survive.
This opens up a lot of questions... for example.. how does a specie evolve?

In a nutshell.. (A very very basic nutshell )...

When saying evolving, it actually means that a species is gradually changing until the point it is no longer considered the same species...

Genetic drift is one term that is part of the entire evolution concept...

Natural selection is not causing any change... natural selection is the term to explain that not all beings can survive in nature..
Let take bears for example...

If you have a group of bears that live in Antarctica, and they have brown fur... (The brown fur bears are called founders - this is the term to call the original population)
lets assume a mutation occurred and one of the cubs was born with white fur...

So we have a mutation that caused a change of genes...

Now that cub mates with other cubs and the white gene may or may not be dominant...
if it is, then you have more bears with white fur... - this is the term (in a nut shell of course) you call genetic drift.

Now, one of two things can happen: either the white fur gene is passed on to next generations and slowly the amount of white furred bears is increasing.. or the gene will fade out of existence...

As the bears at hand live in Antarctica (that is covered in snow and thus is white), it is probable that the bears with white fur will be able to hide (from predators or from prey when they hunt) better as they cloak in the snow...
So the fact that they are able to survive better, will cause the brown bears to slowly extinct as they are less fit to their environment... hence... natural selection...
So nature allowed the white fur bears to survive better than the browns...
until slowly, there are only white furred bears...

This process is very general but that's the main idea of evolution..

So you have the evolution concept..
You have mutations that cause changes in genes (This is BTW the random process in evolution),
You have heritage that makes the genes of the parents combine and construct the new genes of the cubs
You have gene drift that is the name of the concept that some of the genes will be more dominant and populate more cubs
And you have natural selection, that is the term that describes the fact that the beings with higher chance of survival, will probably survive...

The term "Survival of the fittest" is a lot of times being confused (Especially by theist) with the term "survival of the strong"... NO! fittest is not the strongest...
fittest is the specie who is most fitting to the environment it lives in...

Hope that helped to understand evolution a bit better...

But again.. there are no dogmas in evolution.. every scientist knows (belief has nothing to do with it) that the process of evolution is happening. there are however a lot of theories how exactly this process is happening..
How are alleles (this is the name of genes from one parent) construct the whole gene of the cub...
How mutation occur? Some say its random, some say its got patterns etc.. But all scientist agree about the evolution and natural selection.

natural selection BTW can also be an external force like a meteor that causes whole species to extinct (like dinosaurs) and thus allowing the other species (like mammals) to thrive and "win"....
but natural selection itself is not a mechanism rather a process...

Phew.. that was much longer then i planned

 

[Zosimus]

No...Your mixing it up i think...

Evolution is the concept. It is the understanding that species evolve as time passes by. Evolution is not the mechanism rather the process...
Natural selection is a term to explain that the survival of a species is a process that happens in a natural way without an external unnatural intervention (Like ehmmm.. what was it.. oh.. GOD)

So we have the understanding of evolution, and we know that the evolved species that gets to pass on it's genes is a "winner" by the natural selection...

Now lets take the fact that beings evolve and only some of the evolved species are to survive.
This opens up a lot of questions... for example.. how does a specie evolve?

In a nutshell.. (A very very basic nutshell )...

When saying evolving, it actually means that a species is gradually changing until the point it is no longer considered the same species...

Genetic drift is one term that is part of the entire evolution concept...

Natural selection is not causing any change... natural selection is the term to explain that not all beings can survive in nature..
Let take bears for example...

If you have a group of bears that live in Antarctica, and they have brown fur... (The brown fur bears are called founders - this is the term to call the original population)
lets assume a mutation occurred and one of the cubs was born with white fur...

So we have a mutation that caused a change of genes...

Now that cub mates with other cubs and the white gene may or may not be dominant...
if it is, then you have more bears with white fur... - this is the term (in a nut shell of course) you call genetic drift.

Now, one of two things can happen: either the white fur gene is passed on to next generations and slowly the amount of white furred bears is increasing.. or the gene will fade out of existence...

As the bears at hand live in Antarctica (that is covered in snow and thus is white), it is probable that the bears with white fur will be able to hide (from predators or from prey when they hunt) better as they cloak in the snow...
So the fact that they are able to survive better, will cause the brown bears to slowly extinct as they are less fit to their environment... hence... natural selection...
So nature allowed the white fur bears to survive better than the browns...
until slowly, there are only white furred bears...

This process is very general but that's the main idea of evolution..

So you have the evolution concept..
You have mutations that cause changes in genes (This is BTW the random process in evolution),
You have heritage that makes the genes of the parents combine and construct the new genes of the cubs
You have gene drift that is the name of the concept that some of the genes will be more dominant and populate more cubs
And you have natural selection, that is the term that describes the fact that the beings with higher chance of survival, will probably survive...

The term "Survival of the fittest" is a lot of times being confused (Especially by theist) with the term "survival of the strong"... NO! fittest is not the strongest...
fittest is the specie who is most fitting to the environment it lives in...

Hope that helped to understand evolution a bit better...

But again.. there are no dogmas in evolution.. every scientist knows (belief has nothing to do with it) that the process of evolution is happening. there are however a lot of theories how exactly this process is happening..
How are alleles (this is the name of genes from one parent) construct the whole gene of the cub...
How mutation occur? Some say its random, some say its got patterns etc.. But all scientist agree about the evolution and natural selection.

natural selection BTW can also be an external force like a meteor that causes whole species to extinct (like dinosaurs) and thus allowing the other species (like mammals) to thrive and "win"....
but natural selection itself is not a mechanism rather a process...

Phew.. that was much longer then i planned

Oh, I understand perfectly. It's a tautology. Survival of the fittest. But how do we know that the fittest have survived? Because they've survived. So natural selection boils down to the theory that the animals that survive survive.

That's profound.

Of course, theoretically, scientific claims should be falsifiable. Natural selection, however, doesn't fall into that category. For example, if a horse is born that is faster than all the rest, but it steps on a landmine and never breeds, does that falsify natural selection? No.

If a fish egg is laid with the genes to need less food and produce more babies, but it is eaten in the egg form without ever growing to maturity and passing on its genes, is natural selection falsified? No.

Nothing can falsify natural selection. It's a premise to be taken on faith. It's like God. It's beyond doubt.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't normally get involved in these arguments because, generally speaking, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point of view. However, your argument simply doesn't pass logical muster.

Let's say that some of the 613 laws have direct health benefits. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say that 100% of the laws have health benefits that science simply hasn't discovered yet. I'll go that far to give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, just because all 613 statements are true doesn't mean that statement 614 will be true. In fact, it doesn't say anything about it at all.

It would be like me writing on a piece of paper:

Grass is green.
Water is wet.
Darkness makes it hard to see.
Carbon monoxide can kill you if you inhale it.
and
God is a myth.

Does the truth of statements 1-4 make statement 5 guaranteed to be true? Or even more likely to be true? If I added the statement "Diamonds are harder than glass" before statement 1, would that make statement 5 (now statement 6) more likely than without the statement?

No, it wouldn't. So similarly the health benefits of the 614 laws are irrelevant.

I'm not speaking of a conjectural 614th law of God in Tanakh. I'm speaking of the prescience in the realm of science of the 613 we have.

I don't follow your "100% of the laws are healthful doesn't matter" argument. If you think 100% of the laws have health benefits for people, you've just said, "God's laws are good!" which is a strong argument for the Bible being pure and good, not against it.

But my statement isn't (yet) addressed by you or others that the statistical likelihood of God's laws being as beneficial as they are doesn't come from random chance rather than (superior) design.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That really doesn't address the point, however ...

Actually there were two points, not one.

Point 1: If there was reasonable evidence for God, it would be exclaimed universally.

Point 2: God isn't logically excluded if such evidence isn't present.

My response to both points: The Bible addresses just this sort of thing.

We can even go further and look at the Bible and other religious texts also, to discuss Point 3: There are evidences that men suppress.

 

[metis]

Actually there were two points, not one.

Point 1: If there was reasonable evidence for God, it would be exclaimed universally.

Point 2: God isn't logically excluded if such evidence isn't present.

My response to both points: The Bible addresses just this sort of thing.

We can even go further and look at the Bible and other religious texts also, to discuss Point 3: There are evidences that men suppress.

It is logically impossible to prove there isn't a god or gods somewhere, but that doesn't mean there must be. The Bible, like all religious texts, are written from the points of belief, not objectively-derived evidence. And what supposed evidence is suppressed?

 

[Zosimus]

I'm not speaking of a conjectural 614th law of God in Tanakh. I'm speaking of the prescience in the realm of science of the 613 we have.

I don't follow your "100% of the laws are healthful doesn't matter" argument. If you think 100% of the laws have health benefits for people, you've just said, "God's laws are good!" which is a strong argument for the Bible being pure and good, not against it.

But my statement isn't (yet) addressed by you or others that the statistical likelihood of God's laws being as beneficial as they are doesn't come from random chance rather than (superior) design.

Well, it took me a bit to backtrack and find your exact claim, but now I have found it.

Your claim starts with the presupposition that any given recommendation of proscription will be accurate at most 10 percent of the time. Where did this number come from? It seems to me that, in most cases, the number should be close to 50 percent. For example, if an ancient person unenlightened by any kind of learning simply pointed to two random animals and said, "Don't eat animal 1 because animal 2 is far better for you" then the person would be correct half of the time.

From this starting assumption, the 30ish percent that the law of Moses hit is pretty poor. I mean José Smith did pretty well with the Mormons when he told them not to smoke, drink alcohol, tea, or coffee, and to eat meat sparingly. Science agrees with 60 percent of those claims. I guess José Smith was double the prophet Moises was.

 

[Segev Moran]

Oh, I understand perfectly. It's a tautology. Survival of the fittest. But how do we know that the fittest have survived? Because they've survived. So natural selection boils down to the theory that the animals that survive survive.

That's profound.

Of course, theoretically, scientific claims should be falsifiable. Natural selection, however, doesn't fall into that category. For example, if a horse is born that is faster than all the rest, but it steps on a landmine and never breeds, does that falsify natural selection? No.

If a fish egg is laid with the genes to need less food and produce more babies, but it is eaten in the egg form without ever growing to maturity and passing on its genes, is natural selection falsified? No.

Nothing can falsify natural selection. It's a premise to be taken on faith. It's like God. It's beyond doubt.

Sorry friend..
It will be falsifiable of there would be any prove that something other than nature had a "hand" in the evolution process..

If Aliens will appear and prove to us that they "seeded" the planet and embedded a special developing algorithm in our bodies, than the natural selection concept will be false.

What you are saying, that because you can't find a way to disprove it it is wrong while disregarding all the evidence that proves it is true (Unlike theism which claims the opposite.. that it is true just because you can't prove it is wrong).

And BTW, Even today you can see the evolution in process!

And your arguments are wrong BTW...
There is a whole lot more to eat...
For example, Today, about 30% of humans are born without appendix...
Its not just One descendant!
It is true that the smaller the population, the bigger effect a mutation will have, and sometimes in big populations (Like insects) the evolution process is very small because the amount of mutations are not enough to affect the entire specie)
That a very big topic..

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry friend..
It will be falsifiable of there would be any prove that something other than nature had a "hand" in the evolution process..

I have no idea what your sentences mean. Pay closer attention to your grammar.

If Aliens will appear and prove to us that they "seeded" the planet and embedded a special developing algorithm in our bodies, than the natural selection concept will be false.

Sure, and if Thor shows up and proves that Jesus is a fake, then Christianity will be false. So, Christianity must be science. Let's start teaching it in public schools.

What you are saying, that because you can't find a way to disprove it it is wrong while disregarding all the evidence that proves it is true (Unlike theism which claims the opposite.. that it is true just because you can't prove it is wrong)

.
No, I think you need to double check the meaning of the word "tautology." It doesn't mean false by any stretch of the imagination!

And BTW, Even today you can see the evolution in process!

Even today, you can see the Flying Spaghetti Monster's influence in process, changing the world with his noodly appendage.

And your arguments are wrong BTW...
There is a whole lot more to eat...
For example, Today, about 30% of humans are born without appendix...{{citation needed}}

[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3350158/]Approximately 1 person in 100,000 is born without an appendix.

Its not just One descendant!
It is true that the smaller the population, the bigger effect a mutation will have, and sometimes in big populations (Like insects)

Populations are not like insects.

...the evolution process is very small because the amount of mutations are not enough to affect the entire specie)
That a very big topic..

I don't understand what you mean by "the evolution process is very small." I do not associate a size with processes. Do you mean short? simple? fast?[/url]

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is logically impossible to prove there isn't a god or gods somewhere, but that doesn't mean there must be. The Bible, like all religious texts, are written from the points of belief, not objectively-derived evidence. And what supposed evidence is suppressed?

Pardon me for correcting you, but where in the Bible does it offer it is writing from points of belief that don't include, for example, eyewitness testimony? By that I mean that writers will extol God and say their belief in God is empowering, but where in the Bible does any author write, "Behold, I write what I believe but without any evidence that what I write is substantive and factual..."? I think you've added something not in the text.

As for supposed evidence being suppressed, we could talk about groups or masses, but I prefer to ask you to consider what evidence you personally have received that you suppress, or would suppress if it existed. For example, Jesus appears to you and invites you to trust Him. What behaviors and habits of your might inhibit your desire to follow Him? For example, sexual profligacy or immorality, recreational drugs, belief that you are smarter than God, etc.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Populations are not like insects.

Did you mean insect populations are not like human populations? Because there are populations of insects.

I don't understand what you mean by "the evolution process is very small." I do not associate a size with processes. Do you mean short? simple? fast?
The smaller the population the more quickly a single mutated gene that is a positive mutation with benefits for survival will permeate through the whole population. If we have a group of 100 people it can be done in as few as 8 generations for example. If we have a 12 million population it will take significantly more generations for the gene to become integrated for the whole population. Multiple mutations usually happen at once and these accumulated mutations that have spread through the populations add up to small changes that turn the wheel of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I understand perfectly. It's a tautology. Survival of the fittest. But how do we know that the fittest have survived? Because they've survived. So natural selection boils down to the theory that the animals that survive survive.

That's profound.

Of course, theoretically, scientific claims should be falsifiable. Natural selection, however, doesn't fall into that category. For example, if a horse is born that is faster than all the rest, but it steps on a landmine and never breeds, does that falsify natural selection? No.

If a fish egg is laid with the genes to need less food and produce more babies, but it is eaten in the egg form without ever growing to maturity and passing on its genes, is natural selection falsified? No.

Nothing can falsify natural selection. It's a premise to be taken on faith. It's like God. It's beyond doubt.

These examples of yours are absurd, zosimus.

Natural Selection, or for that matter, any other evolutionary mechanisms, are not depended on one single horse or a single fish, but upon a population of species of horses or fishes. A single horse that didn't sire any offspring because of stepping on a land mine, won't make much differences.

I have used similar example that Segev Moran with the polar-brown bears scenario is a lot better example of evolution than yours. Instead of providing a dead-end and lame example of one horse, why don't you objectively examine Segev's bear-example.

I have also often used Galapagos tortoises scenario as a example of Natural Selection of how different environments of two neighbouring islands, can affect the split between the tortoises into two different species.

On one island, where the climate is more humid, with fertile land producing low bushes, where the tortoises here can easily reach and feed on leaves. Here the tortoises are small, with domed shells, and have short necks and short legs. Here are where these tortoises "fit" in.

On some other islands, where the climate is drier and the terrains are and is more rocky, with sparser vegetation, and vegetation that grow there, are higher off the ground, a different species of tortoises are required to survive in such harsher environment than that of smaller cousins of the other island I had mentioned earlier. Here this species, were much larger, have shells of different shape, known as the saddleback shells. These tortoises have longer necks and longer legs, that enabled them to reach their food that the dome-shelled tortoises couldn't reach.

The shape of saddleback shell, allowed a tortoise to stretch its legs and neck, and the amazing thing is that it allow the tortoise to crank its neck upright.

Clearly, the environments of different islands at Galapagos can have impact on life.

Look up Wikipedia article on "Galapagos tortoises", and you will see what I mean by these different species of tortoises, they have images, and explain more in detail than what I have described. This is a perfect example of natural selection.

These are the same islands that Charles Darwin described, in his travel journal, when he sailed around the world aboard HMS Beagle during 1830s.

You say, natural selection is not falsifiable, I'll say that you are wrong. The Galapagos tortoises clearly demonstrated that different islands with different environments can have impact on life of those island, and it wasn't just the tortoises. Darwin had also described different species of finches on different islands. Biologists and other scientists have been visiting these islands, to examine these evidences for themselves, since Darwin had passed away.

Saying absurd thing like natural selection is not falsifiable, clearly showed that you are not willing to examine biology more objectively without letting your faith cloud your judgement.

Do you even understand what they mean by "falsifiable"? It mean something (eg statement) that anyone can refute or can test. Natural Selection is something that biologists can test. And Darwin had provided anyone for to test his works.

Did Darwin get everything right with his On Origin book and later books? Mostly yes, with whatever mistakes he made, have already been corrected. Science, or in this case, biology allowed for any mistakes corrected, for any new evidences and data to update the theory of one mechanism - Natural Selection. And since Darwin's time, there have been more evidences to support Natural Selection, and for biologists to discover other evolutionary mechanisms (eg mutation, gene flow and genetic drift).

 

[gnostic]

Pardon me for correcting you, but where in the Bible does it offer it is writing from points of belief that don't include, for example, eyewitness testimony?

JOB 1 & 2, where God and Satan were making wager about Job.

Are you telling me that there were actual eye-witnesses to this wager being made? Or did the author of JOB invented this story?

As I understand it, the story of Job was set in the time of Moses, according to (Jewish) traditions, and yet there are no explicit mention of Job anywhere in the Torah (the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The only sources outside of the Book of Job, is that of Ezekiel, and he (or whoever truly wrote the book of Ezekiel) made no mention of any wager or Job's sufferings, just that he was a very pious man, like Noah and Daniel.

The only evidence - or more precisely literary evidence to the story of Job is that the book of the same name. And judging by this evidence, JOB wasn't written until the 6th century. If Job was really a figure at the time of Moses, then who was the eyewitness for the wager between God and Satan.

If that being the case, then the author of JOB was clearly not an eyewitness, unless you think the author can time-jump to Moses' time and then return to his time and write that damn book???? Highly unlikely.

No, the most likely answer to the whole story of Job, was that the story was invented in the 6th century BCE, therefore requiring no eye-witness. The book of JOB is not eyewitness or historical account.

 

[metis]

Pardon me for correcting you, but where in the Bible does it offer it is writing from points of belief that don't include, for example, eyewitness testimony? By that I mean that writers will extol God and say their belief in God is empowering, but where in the Bible does any author write, "Behold, I write what I believe but without any evidence that what I write is substantive and factual..."? I think you've added something not in the text.

As for supposed evidence being suppressed, we could talk about groups or masses, but I prefer to ask you to consider what evidence you personally have received that you suppress, or would suppress if it existed. For example, Jesus appears to you and invites you to trust Him. What behaviors and habits of your might inhibit your desire to follow Him? For example, sexual profligacy or immorality, recreational drugs, belief that you are smarter than God, etc.

First of all, why would one blindly believes in all that is written from a subjective source? When we read scriptures, any scriptures, there is always the claim of "eyewitnesses", so why would you believe in one supposed set at the expense of others? I'll tell you why-- because you want to.

By taking that route, everything becomes so easy-- the "my way or the highway" approach and anyone who disagrees is "wrong-headed" people who believe in "false religion". How many times have we seen this put out by others from all different religious perspectives.

So, all you have done is to buy into one set of supposed "eye-witnesses" while ignoring everyone else's claims of the same. Now, don't come back and lay any kind of claim that it is your "eyewitnesses" that are trustworthy and all others are false because you can no more find evidence for that than I can find any evidence for any other such claims.

BTW, if you haven't noticed it before, read my signature statement at the bottom of this post and see if my approach makes any sense to you.

 

[Zosimus]

Did you mean insect populations are not like human populations? Because there are populations of insects.

I don't understand what you mean by "the evolution process is very small." I do not associate a size with processes. Do you mean short? simple? fast?
The smaller the population the more quickly a single mutated gene that is a positive mutation with benefits for survival will permeate through the whole population. If we have a group of 100 people it can be done in as few as 8 generations for example. If we have a 12 million population it will take significantly more generations for the gene to become integrated for the whole population. Multiple mutations usually happen at once and these accumulated mutations that have spread through the populations add up to small changes that turn the wheel of evolution.

The poster said: "...and sometimes in big populations (Like insects) the evolution process is very small because the amount of mutations are not enough to affect the entire specie)"

First of all, big populations are not like insects because insects are invertebrate arthropods whereas populations are a particular section, group, or type of people or animals living in an area or country.

Second, I don't understand what is meant by "very small" in terms of a process nor does your example make it clearer.

Finally, your comment about "beneficial mutations" is just begging the question. How do you know that a mutation is beneficial? Apparently, you don't know (or even care). Let's suppose that you have a population of horses some of which run faster but require more food whereas others run more slowly but require less food. Generation 1, the horses who require less food become more common. Suddenly the "less food" gene is beneficial. The next generation the faster runners become more common. Now the "faster runners" gene is beneficial. How do you know it's not just dumb luck/reversion to the mean?

 

[Zosimus]

These examples of yours are absurd, zosimus.

Natural Selection, or for that matter, any other evolutionary mechanisms, are not depended on one single horse or a single fish, but upon a population of species of horses or fishes. A single horse that didn't sire any offspring because of stepping on a land mine, won't make much differences.

I have used similar example that Segev Moran with the polar-brown bears scenario is a lot better example of evolution than yours. Instead of providing a dead-end and lame example of one horse, why don't you objectively examine Segev's bear-example.

Oh, you mean that example where white bears ended up at the south pole? There are no white bears at the south pole.

I have also often used Galapagos tortoises scenario as a example of Natural Selection of how different environments of two neighbouring islands, can affect the split between the tortoises into two different species.

Species is an artificial concept that has no relationship to anything the real world. No objective, universally-accepted definition of the word exists.

On one island, where the climate is more humid, with fertile land producing low bushes, where the tortoises here can easily reach and feed on leaves. Here the tortoises are small, with domed shells, and have short necks and short legs. Here are where these tortoises "fit" in.

Speculation.

On some other islands, where the climate is drier and the terrains are and is more rocky, with sparser vegetation, and vegetation that grow there, are higher off the ground, a different species of tortoises are required to survive in such harsher environment than that of smaller cousins of the other island I had mentioned earlier. Here this species, were much larger, have shells of different shape, known as the saddleback shells. These tortoises have longer necks and longer legs, that enabled them to reach their food that the dome-shelled tortoises couldn't reach.

More speculation.

The shape of saddleback shell, allowed a tortoise to stretch its legs and neck, and the amazing thing is that it allow the tortoise to crank its neck upright.

Lacks relevance.

​

Clearly, the environments of different islands at Galapagos can have impact on life.

Well, it's clear to you because you started out with that as the starting assumption.

Look up Wikipedia article on "Galapagos tortoises", and you will see what I mean by these different species of tortoises, they have images, and explain more in detail than what I have described. This is a perfect example of natural selection.

The perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

These are the same islands that Charles Darwin described, in his travel journal, when he sailed around the world aboard HMS Beagle during 1830s.

You say, natural selection is not falsifiable, I'll say that you are wrong. The Galapagos tortoises clearly demonstrated that different islands with different environments can have impact on life of those island, and it wasn't just the tortoises. Darwin had also described different species of finches on different islands. Biologists and other scientists have been visiting these islands, to examine these evidences for themselves, since Darwin had passed away.

You say that I'm wrong, but you don't supply a test that could possibly show natural selection to be incorrect. For example, what if I showed that peahens are not attracted to peacocks with better trains? Would that falsify natural selection? If not, what would?

Saying absurd thing like natural selection is not falsifiable, clearly showed that you are not willing to examine biology more objectively without letting your faith cloud your judgement.

Cut the shoot. Either make a logical argument or don't, but don't try to say that my "faith" in agnosticism clouds my judgement.

Do you even understand what they mean by "falsifiable"? It mean something (eg statement) that anyone can refute or can test. Natural Selection is something that biologists can test. And Darwin had provided anyone for to test his works.

Do I understand what "they" mean by falsifiable? Who are "they"? I feel like I'm talking to a conspiracy theorist. "They" know the real meaning of falsifiable, but "they" won't let anyone else know. "They" kill anyone who finds out.

Did Darwin get everything right with his On Origin book and later books? Mostly yes, with whatever mistakes he made, have already been corrected. Science, or in this case, biology allowed for any mistakes corrected, for any new evidences and data to update the theory of one mechanism - Natural Selection. And since Darwin's time, there have been more evidences to support Natural Selection, and for biologists to discover other evolutionary mechanisms (eg mutation, gene flow and genetic drift).

Speculation.

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, why would one blindly believes in all that is written from a subjective source? When we read scriptures, any scriptures, there is always the claim of "eyewitnesses", so why would you believe in one supposed set at the expense of others? I'll tell you why-- because you want to.

By taking that route, everything becomes so easy-- the "my way or the highway" approach and anyone who disagrees is "wrong-headed" people who believe in "false religion". How many times have we seen this put out by others from all different religious perspectives.

So, all you have done is to buy into one set of supposed "eye-witnesses" while ignoring everyone else's claims of the same. Now, don't come back and lay any kind of claim that it is your "eyewitnesses" that are trustworthy and all others are false because you can no more find evidence for that than I can find any evidence for any other such claims.

BTW, if you haven't noticed it before, read my signature statement at the bottom of this post and see if my approach makes any sense to you.

Yeah, it's ridiculous to rely on eyewitnesses. Can you believe the nonsense that eyewitnesses claim to have seen? Someone told me that there were supposed eyewitnesses to a truck running people over in Nice recently. But, of course, there are always subjective sources that claim eyewitnesses.

It's as ridiculous as thinking that someone tried to cross the Alps with elephants to attack Rome. What kind of a fool do you take me for?

 

[metis]

Yeah, it's ridiculous to rely on eyewitnesses. Can you believe the nonsense that eyewitnesses claim to have seen? Someone told me that there were supposed eyewitnesses to a truck running people over in Nice recently. But, of course, there are always subjective sources that claim eyewitnesses.

It's as ridiculous as thinking that someone tried to cross the Alps with elephants to attack Rome. What kind of a fool do you take me for?

Somehow you seem to have thoroughly missed the point I was making. So, "What Kind of fool do you take me for?" is quite a bizarre statement because of this, and also because my post wasn't addressed to you in the first place.

So, maybe you can answer your own question about yourself because it doesn't apply to me and what the point I was making that somehow you managed to miss.

 

[gnostic]

Do I understand what "they" mean by falsifiable? Who are "they"? I feel like I'm talking to a conspiracy theorist. "They" know the real meaning of falsifiable, but "they" won't let anyone else know. "They" kill anyone who finds out.

That's funny, Zosimus, because I thought you the one who is conspiracy theorist.

Are you sure, you are not talking about yourself?

Oh, you mean that example where white bears ended up at the south pole? There are no white bears at the south pole.

Segev may have been wrong about the polar bear's location, he is not wrong about natural selection with the polar bears and brown bears. He made one mistake with where the polar bears were located, doesn't make the rest of his points invalid or wrong.

The bear example I had given only referred to polar bears living in the Arctic regions, and I had often referred to other bears as "southern cousins" or "southern bears", which would implied the polar bears located north.

Read Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God", posts 143, 148. Or another thread called The assumptions behind evolution

Cut the shoot. Either make a logical argument or don't, but don't try to say that my "faith" in agnosticism clouds my judgement.

If you think you have "faith" in agnosticism, then it isn't agnosticism at all.

Agnosticism is a philosophical position that relates to the question of theism "the existence of a deity", but itself is not a theological position. "Faith" is not a requirement in agnosticism.

Faith relies on accepting belief, hence faith is all about conviction in the belief, regardless if it true or not.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is related to "knowing". Agnosticism, in a nutshell, is a position in which a person will state that the belief or disbelief in the existence of deity/deities is "unknowable".

The "believing" and "knowing" are not the same things.

Agnosticism, atheism and theism are not science. So what does falsifiability have to do with your agnosticism????

Falsifiability and falsification are science terms, not an agnostic terms, that involve statement that can be potential "refuted", in another word, the statement can be "tested".

If a statement is untestable, then it is "unfalsifiable", hence unfalsifiable statement or claim are deemed unscientific.

And FYI, I am agnostic. And my agnosticism is not and has nothing to do with science; and neither do atheism, nor do theism.

What does your agnosticism have to do with science? It doesn't.

The perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Spoken like someone who don't understand biology. If you want to put your head in the sand, then that's your business.

"Speculation"..."speculation"..."speculation"..."speculation"... Is that really the best you can do?

Since, you are incapable of learning and investigating biological evidences, then I will not again be responding to your insufferable and wilful ignorance.