Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[gnostic]

That simply isn't true. You are forgetting about the fact that evidence has repeatedly confirmed that the overwhelming trend is that the fittest in a species are more likely to and have survived. Polar Bears for example have come from bears that were black or brown. When they migrated to areas that were snow covered, lighter coloring was beneficial. More and more light colored bears flourished and eventually the white bears we see today became the norm in areas where the ground is snow covered year round.

The color also served as effective camouflage with all the snow and ice everywhere. The white fur allow the polar bears to pounce on any unsuspecting prey, including humans.

Unlike that of their southern cousins, they have a lot more body fat, which better insulate them from the freezing Arctic climate and swim in icy water. It also allowed them to hunt in coldest time, while black and brown bears tends to hibernate during winter.

 

[leibowde84]

If it's not a tautology, then it should be experimentally falsifiable. Please indicate what tests we could run that could, at least theoretically, falsify the theory of natural selection.

Natural selection is not a theory, it's the mechanism by which evolution works. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, and I already provided examples for that. You are reaching buddy.

 

[Zosimus]

Natural selection is not a theory, it's the mechanism by which evolution works. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, and I already provided examples for that. You are reaching buddy.

If natural selection isn't a theory, then why do I find books entitled The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection?

Once again, the book, which J. B. S. Haldane (1932) described as “brilliant” and Sewall Wright (1930) as “certain to take rank as one of the major contributions to the theory of evolution,” is in print.

Which book? The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.

Natural selection is a theory.

 

[leibowde84]

If natural selection isn't a theory, then why do I find books entitled The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection?

Once again, the book, which J. B. S. Haldane (1932) described as “brilliant” and Sewall Wright (1930) as “certain to take rank as one of the major contributions to the theory of evolution,” is in print.

Which book? The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.

Natural selection is a theory.

The title of a book is the best you can do?! Come on. Get real.

 

[McBell]

If natural selection isn't a theory, then why do I find books entitled The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection?

Once again, the book, which J. B. S. Haldane (1932) described as “brilliant” and Sewall Wright (1930) as “certain to take rank as one of the major contributions to the theory of evolution,” is in print.

Which book? The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.

Natural selection is a theory.

you do understand that the title is talking about a theory within natural selection, right?

 

[McBell]

The title of a book is the best you can do?! Come on. Get real.

the title of the book does not support his claim....

 

[Zosimus]

The title of a book is the best you can do?! Come on. Get real.

Ah, friend. Every time someone says something that you disagree with you say:

Evidence?

Yet you prove no evidence for your own claims. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

Now I already linked you to http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-natural-selection-faq.htm but you ignored it.
Now I have linked you to a book, but you ignore that too.

I have little hope, but I link you to this too.

 

[leibowde84]

the title of the book does not support his claim....

That's true. But, I don't think the title of a book would support any claim unless the claim was what a book was called.

 

[Segev Moran]

Yes, WHAT and HOW are objective.

The WHY is only really useful in social science, but not in natural science (physical science or life science).

Even then, The WHY can only be subjective...
And things that are adapted to one's mind, cannot be a valid question to be asked.

Meaning: I can ask WHY do we have light bulbs? The purpose of light bulbs is known to all, its to generate light.. but this is not an answer that have a true meaning.. For some people, a light bulb can be used to heat, some use it as decoration and so on.. and all the answers are true.

 

[Segev Moran]

You claimed that the Earth was a sphere. The link refutes your position.

I Stand corrected.. I did say that, When i meant spheroid.. But that's not the issue

You seem to think that no one should believe a claim unless it can be proved. This claim is one that I do not believe in because it cannot be proved.

That's quite far from what I Claim...
You can believe whatever you like!!! It's your life, and I respect each and every person for his opinions even If i find them wrong or even horrifying (In case of racism for example).
What I claim is, that you cannot claim something as truth unless you provide at least some evidence to show that indeed your claim has valid grounds to be considered as possible.

You can believe in the existence of GOD. I Love a cherish a lot of people that believe in GOD... But when they come to me and tell me that i will go to hell because of my ways.. then I'd rather set them straight or ask them to provide an evidence for that fact.

What would you say are the chances that God exists?

Well.. What are the chances for intelligent life on other planets? There is an equation trying to guess that number... it has many factors, some of them are known, some are an approximation and some are left as unknowns but as those numbers are filled, the chances are going down and down...
It is called the Drake Equation...

So basically.. you can take this equation and add to it the factor of "number spiritual dimensions" and "Number of non-materialistic entities in the universe"

These are probably the chances for GOD...

No, I'm saying that the most logical response to a lack of evidence is agnosticism. You should assume that there's a 50-50 chance and leave it at that until evidence is available one way or the other.

Sorry man, But it is not a 50% chance...

Its not that it either exists or not...

Let me explain:

Lets say you have X balls in a box...

Will start with Two balls.. One red and one Blue...

If you choose one out of the box without looking inside, Indeed... there is a 50% chance that ball is Blue...
and in that case..

Now lets say you have 4 balls...
Blue, Red, Green and Yellow...

It is true that the Ball can be either Blue or not.. But it does not mean that there is 50-50 change of it being Blue...
The chances are 1 of 4 (Only one out of the four possibilities can be Blue) thus 25% chance..

Hope you get where I'm going here...

Now if you had 10 Balls.. still the ball can be blue or not.. yet now the chances for it being blue are 10% (1 of 10)

So assuming there are thousand of GODs, and thousands of beliefs.. the chances of there actually being a GOD (In the sense of GOD).. are slim to none...

I guess not!

Yet here I am replying... shame on me

It's not a big made up game. It's just that the data do not support your position.

There are many questions indeed.. but if walks like a duck and quaks like a duck...

No, the moon does NOT revolve around the Earth.

Sorry to disappoint.. But it does..
Its not revolving earth in a circle... but it does revolve around it...

I'm failing with the terms here You'll have to excuse me as Again.. I'm not a native English speaker and at times I use "Free translation" and the words are wrong..

When I say revolve, I Mean moves in an orbit around the earth (Not necessarily circle...)
Geez...

No, this is an assumption based on the red shift.

And i assume you think its also a belief...

Cool

Thanks

Just google it man

Hmmmm

Indeed

Yeah, but all of those discoveries were made before science, as we know it, existed.

That's the beauty of it all..
Science is changing and evolving (if you please)...
It changes and adopts, As science is not a set of rules and terms..
You can make a giant scientific discovery without ever reading a single page of science!
So maybe you don't know to call it Science.. but it is...
Just like the understanding of fire..
It wasn't science as we know it.. but it was a Hugh scientific discovery!

 

[Zosimus]

Even then, The WHY can only be subjective...
And things that are adapted to one's mind, cannot be a valid question to be asked.

Meaning: I can ask WHY do we have light bulbs? The purpose of light bulbs is known to all, its to generate light.. but this is not an answer that have a true meaning.. For some people, a light bulb can be used to heat, some use it as decoration and so on.. and all the answers are true.

No, you cannot ask why we have light bulbs. The question is meaningless because the simple existence of a light bulb can be explained using metaphysical naturalism. Asking why shows that you're unscientific and trying to postulate an intelligence when simple natural explanations will suffice.

 

[Zosimus]

I Stand corrected.. I did say that, When i meant spheroid.. But that's not the issue

Okay, but a skeptic can easily doubt your claim.

That's quite far from what I Claim...
You can believe whatever you like!!! It's your life, and I respect each and every person for his opinions even If i find them wrong or even horrifying (In case of racism for example).
What I claim is, that you cannot claim something as truth unless you provide at least some evidence to show that indeed your claim has valid grounds to be considered as possible.

Do you claim that "You cannot claim something as truth unless you provide at least some evidence to show that indeed your claim has valid grounds to be considered as possible" is true? If so, what are the valid grounds that demonstrate that the claim is true?

You can believe in the existence of GOD. I Love a cherish a lot of people that believe in GOD... But when they come to me and tell me that i will go to hell because of my ways.. then I'd rather set them straight or ask them to provide an evidence for that fact.

Ahh, but here you have moved the goalposts. Before you said "valid grounds" but here you are saying "evidence." Do you believe that the only valid grounds for a belief is evidence?

Well.. What are the chances for intelligent life on other planets? There is an equation trying to guess that number... it has many factors, some of them are known, some are an approximation and some are left as unknowns but as those numbers are filled, the chances are going down and down...
It is called the Drake Equation...

Well, alien life either exists or it does not exist. We do not know the answer. However, some people have attempted to use formulae to update their subjective degree of belief in alien life. When I ask you about the probability of something, I mean to say your subjective degree of belief.

So basically.. you can take this equation and add to it the factor of "number spiritual dimensions" and "Number of non-materialistic entities in the universe"

These are probably the chances for GOD...

Well, not really, but apparently it's your degree of belief in God, which is quite low.

Sorry man, But it is not a 50% chance...

Its not that it either exists or not...

Let me explain:

Lets say you have X balls in a box...

Will start with Two balls.. One red and one Blue...

Right so 50-50 because red and blue are exhaustive.

If you choose one out of the box without looking inside, Indeed... there is a 50% chance that ball is Blue...
and in that case..

Right. And since God either exists... or does not... then 50-50 is a good STARTING subjective degree of belief.

Now lets say you have 4 balls...
Blue, Red, Green and Yellow...

It is true that the Ball can be either Blue or not.. But it does not mean that there is 50-50 change of it being Blue...
The chances are 1 of 4 (Only one out of the four possibilities can be Blue) thus 25% chance..

Hope you get where I'm going here...

I do, but the numbers are not in your favor. Look -- let's start with JHVH vs. atheism. Atheism has a 50% chance of being right. However, if you include all of the God concepts available, plus the possibility that God exists but is unknown, plus atheism... then the chances that atheism is correct are vanishingly small.

Now if you had 10 Balls.. still the ball can be blue or not.. yet now the chances for it being blue are 10% (1 of 10)

Well, you know this because you have set up the problem that way. You know that there are 10 balls in a box. In reality, we don't know the situation at all. So your situation does not bear much comparison to the real world in which we live.

So assuming there are thousand of GODs, and thousands of beliefs.. the chances of there actually being a GOD (In the sense of GOD).. are slim to none...

This might be depressing for Christians, but it doesn't bother someone like me one bit.

There are many questions indeed.. but if walks like a duck and quaks like a duck...

Then it's probably a team mascot?

Sorry to disappoint.. But it does..
Its not revolving earth in a circle... but it does revolve around it...

No. Both revolve around the barycenter of the system in question. It is just as valid to say that the Earth revolves around the Moon as it is to say that the Moon revolves around the Earth. All motion is relative.

That's the beauty of it all..
Science is changing and evolving (if you please)...
It changes and adopts, As science is not a set of rules and terms..
You can make a giant scientific discovery without ever reading a single page of science!
So maybe you don't know to call it Science.. but it is...
Just like the understanding of fire..
It wasn't science as we know it.. but it was a Hugh scientific discovery!

Well, you'll excuse me if I don't see the beauty of a system that admits that all of its conclusions will eventually be proved wrong.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, you cannot ask why we have light bulbs. The question is meaningless because the simple existence of a light bulb can be explained using metaphysical naturalism. Asking why shows that you're unscientific and trying to postulate an intelligence when simple natural explanations will suffice.

LOL.. Read my entire post dude...

You just repeated what I've said.

Read before you react

 

[Segev Moran]

No, you cannot ask why we have light bulbs. The question is meaningless because the simple existence of a light bulb can be explained using metaphysical naturalism. Asking why shows that you're unscientific and trying to postulate an intelligence when simple natural explanations will suffice.

Just to make sure you read right this time: " but this is not an answer that have a true meaning."

 

[Segev Moran]

Okay, but a skeptic can easily doubt your claim.

Note taken

Do you claim that "You cannot claim something as truth unless you provide at least some evidence to show that indeed your claim has valid grounds to be considered as possible" is true? If so, what are the valid grounds that demonstrate that the claim is true?

Simply due to the fact that when you base your assumptions on evidence, stuff just work as you assumed...
When things work as you assume.. you probably assume right

Ahh, but here you have moved the goalposts. Before you said "valid grounds" but here you are saying "evidence." Do you believe that the only valid grounds for a belief is evidence?

Yes.

Well, alien life either exists or it does not exist. We do not know the answer. However, some people have attempted to use formulae to update their subjective degree of belief in alien life. When I ask you about the probability of something, I mean to say your subjective degree of belief.

Statistics is not subjective.

Well, not really, but apparently it's your degree of belief in God, which is quite low.

I Agree on the "Quite low" part LOL.

Right. And since God either exists... or does not... then 50-50 is a good STARTING subjective degree of belief.

Its actually: God A either exists or not, God B either exists or not and so on...
The fact is, You can't really check it out as no one really knows the number of possibilities as they are infinite.
So the chances have a red ball out of infinite number of uniquely colored balls is actually zero...

I do, but the numbers are not in your favor. Look -- let's start with JHVH vs. atheism. Atheism has a 50% chance of being right. However, if you include all of the God concepts available, plus the possibility that God exists but is unknown, plus atheism... then the chances that atheism is correct are vanishingly small.

Na ah...
Lets get back to the balls..
Theism is saying there are balls in the box even though you've never seen any, nor have you had any clue or little evidence that there are any balls in the box... let alone the RED BALL...

A-Theism says: If I have no evidence what so ever that there are balls in the box, It will be wrong to believe there are balls in the box...

That's it.. Nothing too complex.. No Believing there are no balls... To believe there are no balls, means to say there are no balls in the box even though there is evidence that there are balls in the box...
[/QUOTE]

Well, you know this because you have set up the problem that way. You know that there are 10 balls in a box. In reality, we don't know the situation at all. So your situation does not bear much comparison to the real world in which we live.

So once again.. The chance of something to be true out of infinity possibilities is ZERO

This might be depressing for Christians, but it doesn't bother someone like me one bit.

I Don't really think it bothers them because they don't care about the reality we live in... Unfortunately, one of the side effects of being religious is believing that everything will be ok in the next life...

Then it's probably a team mascot?

Hehe.. True indeed.. Now you're talking FACTS!!!

No. Both revolve around the barycenter of the system in question. It is just as valid to say that the Earth revolves around the Moon as it is to say that the Moon revolves around the Earth. All motion is relative.

As you said, Because the pool is the same but the effect of the pool on earth is lower.. this means that in relation to one another, the moon is rotating around the earth rather than earth around the moon...

Well, you'll excuse me if I don't see the beauty of a system that admits that all of its conclusions will eventually be proved wrong.

you are excused

 

[leibowde84]

Well, alien life either exists or it does not exist. We do not know the answer. However, some people have attempted to use formulae to update their subjective degree of belief in alien life. When I ask you about the probability of something, I mean to say your subjective degree of belief.

This is actually using the word "probability" incorrectly. Probabilities are not subjective in nature. They are based on statistics and mathematical likelihoods.

 

[Zosimus]

Simply due to the fact that when you base your assumptions on evidence, stuff just work as you assumed...
When things work as you assume.. you probably assume right

I see no reason to believe that to be true.

Yes [evidence is the only valid reason for believing something].

What evidence do you provide to support the idea that evidence is the only valid reason for believing something?

Statistics is not subjective.

I Agree on the "Quite low" part LOL.

There's a subjective probability right there.

Its actually: God A either exists or not, God B either exists or not and so on...
The fact is, You can't really check it out as no one really knows the number of possibilities as they are infinite.

This is a misunderstanding. God either exists or he does not. You cannot determine whether he exists by calculating all the different possibilities, but that does not change the underlying truth that he might exist. That's why I'm agnostic.

Lets get back to the balls..
Theism is saying there are balls in the box even though you've never seen any, nor have you had any clue or little evidence that there are any balls in the box... let alone the RED BALL...

Quit playing with your balls. This is not a valid analogy.

A-Theism says: If I have no evidence what so ever that there are balls in the box, It will be wrong to believe there are balls in the box...

Aye, and that's why atheism is a self-refuting belief system.

That's it.. Nothing too complex.. No Believing there are no balls... To believe there are no balls, means to say there are no balls in the box even though there is evidence that there are balls in the box...

Whatever.

So once again.. The chance of something to be true out of infinity possibilities is ZERO

No, something is either true or not true. It's not a matter of chance. It's a matter of estimating your own subjective degree of belief.

As you said, Because the pool is the same but the effect of the pool on earth is lower.. this means that in relation to one another, the moon is rotating around the earth rather than earth around the moon...

The pool is the same?

Like this pool?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow Its been a while since I posted. Well better get started.

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.

Yes. I agree. What I don't understand is what the problem is with that. Perhaps he should have said "as such with specific insect populations" rather than "insects" in general? I thought his meaning came across fine colloquially.

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

The changes being very small? Or the populations being very small? The larger the population the longer it takes for a beneficial gene to permeate through the population. For more on what makes a gene beneficial see below in the next part. A small population means that it takes fewer generations to permeate a beneficial gene.

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?

Beneficial gene isn't a category of gene. We have a way of knowing what is and isn't beneficial at any given point in time. That question is answered by "does it increase its chances of survival and producing offspring". That is all it is. What it does and how it functions is largely irrelevant.

To a degree it is dumb luck. There is no "run fast" gene but there are genes that can make slight alterations to the organism that allows it to preform better at a specific skill or ability that gives it an edge in survival. In your example of the horses it takes several hundred generations at least of any kind of gene mutation to permeate the population. That means that the gene would have had to have been successful for hundred if not thousands of generations in a row. We do see changes and "reversion" to a degree. At one time there were lizards about the size of chickens. Eventually they evolved to be as huge and ferocious as the T-rex. Now the closest living relative of the T-rex is the chicken. There is no line of improvement. There is only adjustments to the here and now of any given species at a specific location in both environment and time.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

He clearly meant populations of insects, as an example. The term population can refer to populations of insects.

 

[Zosimus]

Wow Its been a while since I posted. Well better get started. Yes. I agree. What I don't understand is what the problem is with that. Perhaps he should have said "as such with specific insect populations" rather than "insects" in general? I thought his meaning came across fine colloquially.

Since like means similar to, I fail to see how populations are similar to insects.

The changes being very small? Or the populations being very small? The larger the population the longer it takes for a beneficial gene to permeate through the population. For more on what makes a gene beneficial see below in the next part. A small population means that it takes fewer generations to permeate a beneficial gene.

Well, it's unclear isn't it? That's why I asked for clarification.

Beneficial gene isn't a category of gene. We have a way of knowing what is and isn't beneficial at any given point in time. That question is answered by "does it increase its chances of survival and producing offspring". That is all it is. What it does and how it functions is largely irrelevant.

Of course not. However, that doesn't stop you from claiming that natural selection preserves beneficial genes and eliminates harmful ones. I have no way of determining whether that is true. It seems more like a tautology than anything else. I guess I'll remain agnostic.

To a degree it is dumb luck. There is no "run fast" gene but there are genes that can make slight alterations to the organism that allows it to preform better at a specific skill or ability that gives it an edge in survival.

Since horses with longer legs run more slowly than do those with shorter legs a "run fast" gene could simply be a shorter-legged horse.

In your example of the horses it takes several hundred generations at least of any kind of gene mutation to permeate the population.

Not necessarily.

That means that the gene would have had to have been successful for hundred if not thousands of generations in a row. We do see changes and "reversion" to a degree. At one time there were lizards about the size of chickens. Eventually they evolved to be as huge and ferocious as the T-rex. Now the closest living relative of the T-rex is the chicken. There is no line of improvement. There is only adjustments to the here and now of any given species at a specific location in both environment and time.

I didn't get the point of that, and anyway a lot of it was speculation.