Re: Using evolution's effects

On May 2, 7:17 am, b...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Artificial selection is the exact opposite of evolution. If you have
artificiality, you have ID. That's just the way it is.

You are redefining ID (like a chameleon) into a form so that it can be
agreed to be everyone.

No, I'm not. Artificial selection is ID. Period.

That is an outright lie.

ID is the assertion that an "Intelligent Designer" using possibly
supernatural powers has interferred with normal evolutionary processes
to produce systems which could not have evolved. T

They are equivalent,
in the sense that both assume an Intelligence guiding the process of
Natural Selection.

And FYI, I agree that Natural Selection happens, WITHIN species.

Another outright lie, given that you have been provided with numerous
citations which demonstrate that speciation events have occured in the
laboratory and in nature.

Natural Selection (within species) is expected in both Creationist and
Evolutionary scenarios, and thus the fact that NS occurs does not help
us to decide between evolution or creation.



NOBODY WAS SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS. His point was that selection on
phenotypic effects, present in the existing generation with no memory
or foresight, can create big differences over many generations. He was
not saying that the farmer equals natural selection. He was saying
that the farmer's behaviour in selecting is analogous to the natural
selection of the creature's environment.

It is only "analogous" if you also want to say that Intelligent Design
is likewise "analogous" to evolution.

Somehow I don't think that will fly very well here at talk.origins.

know anything about genetics (many do today, but they didn't in the
past). He just has to favour the best milk producers. Natural
selection may favour, for example, the fastest, or those with the best
eyesight (it doesn't matter, so long as it increases their chances of
survival). The fact that natural selection exists (eg. the best
equipped to survive are more likely to survive) is undisputable --
livewire was bringing our attention to the fact that phenotypic
selection does indeed have an effect on the population.

OF course NS is indisputable. It is only SPECIATION that is disputed.

Not even AiG disputes that speciation events have taken place.
They have.
You are lying again.

Creationists know that Natural Selection occurs all the time.....
WITHIN SPECIES.

AiG says that speciation events have occured.
What do you know that they don't?
More to the point, what do you know that the scientists who have
actually studied the subject don't?


Big deal, that is not what Darwin's book was about. He did not call
his book "Origin of Natural Selection." Nor did He call it "Origin of
Genetic Mutations." Nope. He called it "Origin of Species." His title
makes it perfectly clear what his radical new idea was.

The full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life."

Have you ever considered that a blatant display of ignorance does not
add to your case?


And the attempts by modern evolutionists to muddy the waters by saying
that natural selection and genetic mutation are somehow "evidence for
evolution" is simply wrong-headed.


Well, they've studied the subject, and they offer natural selection
and genetic mutation as evidence for evolution. So, even if you
disagree with how the evidence is interpreted, is it a fact that they
are evidence for evolution.

It's up to you to provide an alternative interpretation for all the
evidence which is as robust as evolutionary theory.



Evolutionists have never claimed this. The biological definition of a
species is to do with their ability to reproduce with other creatures

I encourage you to read both the speciation faq as well as numerous
debates I have had with several people on this newsgroup. In the FAQ,
it talks of the BSC, but it tries to partially argue against it.

That's because it is not universally applicable. It cannot be used for
organisms which reproduce asexually, nor for fossils, and it can be
ambigiuous because of the degree of hybridisation which can occur
between many different species.

That
way, it can trot out numerous morphological-phenetic "speciations"
which are based upon "how animals look" and supposedly a new species
is defined by morphology rather than reproductive isolation.

You have been corrected on this as well. Do you think that trotting
out the same false arguments again and again makes you look honest?


You are correct that the BSC is based on reproduction, but if you
limit observed speciations to that alone, (reproductive isolation) it
is mind-blowing how few of these have even been CLAIMED to have been
observed.

As you have not read any of the scientific literature on the subject,
how the hell do you know?
You're lying again.


Evolution is heavily dependent of morphological-phenetic so-called
"speciation observations." It ain't pretty, let me tell you. From a
Popperian perspective, it is downright ugly.


More nonsense.

(ironically, some creationists did some experiments to discover that,
via an improbable line of ancestry, some species can in fact
interbreed and tried to use this as evidence AGAINST evolution as
opposed to evidence for it -- I'm not sure whether they missed the
point or whether they were deliberately trying to decieve).

This paragraph does not make sense at all. If a species can interbreed
with a different so-called "other species" then according to the BSC,
it in point of fact was the same species all along. (provided, or
course, that the offspring can continue the healthy reproductive
line).

More nonsense.


Any two specimens that can interbreed and produce a healthy
reproductive line are by definition the same species.

Nope. There is a high level of hybridisation between many species.

That is what
healthy specimens from the same species do.... they reproduce, and
their offspring are healthy and are capable of continuing the same
robust reproductive line. This is the only falsifiable and testable
model of species.

Nope. Wrong again. I'd suggest that you read about the application of
different species concepts in biology, but you are evidently incapable
of learning.

Why do you think that making things up as you go along adds weight to
your argument?

No morphological or phenetic definition is
acceptable in any Popperian scheme.

Do you even know what "phenetic" means? Just curious.




You evolutionist character sounds a lot like pretty much every
creationist I have ever spoken to on the issue. Oddly, when I have
disguised myself as a creationist (yay for anonymous internet!), I
don't encounter this from evolutionists except for the occasional
testy newcomer.

I have been called a liar so many times on this newgroup that I have
lost count. Aside from the fact that this is an ad hominem fallacy, I
would like to point out that much better than just shouting "liar" is
to simply disprove whatever the other supposed "liar" just said.

I've provided very strong evidence that you are a liar. You asserted
that no scientific paper describing any speciation event had been
"rigourously falsifed", yet you admitted that far from reading all
such papers, you had not read any of them.

This means that you were lying.


But rather than doing that, several people on this newsgroup think
that by calling me a "liar" they have somehow proven a point.

The point is that you are exposing the fundamental dishonesty of your
position by lying. Have you ever considered that to refrain from lying
would make you look more honest?

They
should simply disprove my statement, rather than plumbing the depths
of my supposed "intent to decieve" or whatever the heck they think
they know about my state of mind.



I like the way you ignored every single piece of evidence except for
one minor detail. Did you learn that at church?

Nope. I simply am noting that the so-called evidence for evolution
(natural selection within species..... and genetic variation within
species ) are to be expected in a Creationist Scenario and thus are
NOT, in point of fact, evidence for evolution at all.

Well, as there is no single "creationist scenario", you can claim
anything as support.

By the way, some creationists accept that speciation events have taken
place.
What do you know that they don't?


If God created all the species in a reproductively isolated manner,
both Natural Selection AND genetic variation could operate WITHIN
species and no evolution would occur whatsoever in the Darwinian
sense. Thus we can have (and we DO have) both NS and genetic
variation, and yet Darwin is DOA because of lack of evidence.

The biologists who have actually studied the subject, as opposed to
the people who lie about it, think that the evidence provides
overwhelming support for evolution.
What do you know that they don't?




You mean the people who wanted to keep pseudoscience out of the
science classes? The ones who were upholding your constitution by
keeping religion (yes it is religion, let's not play games) out of
schools?

Who gets to decide what is "pseudo-science?" Are you aware that over
70 percent of Americans believe in either straight Creationism, or God-
guided evolution?

That doesn't make it science.

So what, the 30 percent straight evolutionists for
some reason get to ram their opinions down everyone else's throat?

What is and what is not science is not decided by opinion poll.


As far as keeping religion out of schools. This was not the original
design of the first amendment. If it HAD been the original intent of
the first amendment to keep religion out of schools, I think they
would have figured this out before 1963.


Well, the courts decided otherwise.
What do you know that they don't?



Quick example: It was admitted that the definition of 'science'
forwarded by the ID people in that trial would have included
astrology. Were we censoring astrologists? Should cosmic spirituality
be taught alongside astro-physics?

We should not censor ANYONE. If parents want to send their kids to a
school where astrology is taught, that is their freedom of religion.

Yep. But it isn't science, and does not belong in the science class.

I
say this even though I don't believe in astrology. You see, I
understand the concept of religious FREEDOM, where even religious
ideas that I don't agree with are given freedom of expression.

So you want religion to be taught in science classes.

I doubt that many educators do.


See how that works? It's really not that complicated. Unless you have
pompous, elitist tendencies, and wish to ram your personal opinions
down the throats of everyone else.



So you agree with us? That those creatures that reproduce more will
dominate the gene pool and this selection will affect the phenotypes
of future generations?

Of course I agree that Natural Selection occurs WITHIN species. Big
Whoop. That is to be expected in a Creationist scenario.



Unless you're disputing that some creatures are more likely than
others to survive in the wild, where is the argument here? How can you
claim not to believe in natural selection?

Natural Selection occurs. WITHIN species. Not across them.

If you claim to have observed a reproductively isolated speciation
that has undergone rigorous Popperian falsification testing,
(translation: multiple artificial insemination attempts) please link
to one with all speed. But I won't hold my breath for that one.


You've been provided with links to just such a paper, but you ignore
them.

Why do you think that lying adds weight to your case?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... different populations then external pressures can select one or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... definitions of "evolution." ... evolution within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... selection as an example of this sort of thing, and so far you haven't addressed it. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... Natural selection is the process that prevents billions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... evolution occurs when a species ... It does this by reducing variation. ... > Selection is a brake, a mechanism to reduce variation, to weed out ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)