Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2c5c9380-0f53-46bc-b928-f9cf394de597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 27, 6:32 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip


I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
synthesis).

"Never, I repeat never (except for 20% of the time)"


That 20% (if accurate, and some percentage is) represents the period
in evolutionary science before natural selection was universally
excepted. The selectionists always existed since Darwin but their view
was not the majority view until the synthesis.

Not relevant, as has been pointed out. Natural selection is not the only
mechanism of evolution.



Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.

This is not a commonly accepted definition of microevolution. Have you
been talking to backspace?


You are ignorant and do not know what your own theory claims.

Ray, your own ideas about evolution are wrong. You are the one who doesn't
know that the theory claims.


My short definition, of course, presupposes natural selection to be
the main (but not the exclusive) cause of modification.

But that's wrong. "modification" as you put it is caused by mutations.
Selection is what fixes a mutation in the population.


If you insist on that definition, I will agree that is has never
happened. Natural selection only makes one type of change to an
individual organism - it kills it.

False to a silly degree.

This shows you don't understand what natural selection is.


Natural selection is a process, a mechanism and a result.

Where do you get this idea?

It can only
act one way which is understood in different ways. Evolutionists
routinely forget that NS is material phenomenom.

Ray, all phenomena that can be observed is a material phenomena. Where do
you get the idea anyone "forgets" this?

This means it can
only act one way: it has no mind or foresight.

So? That doesn't mean it can only act "one way".

It is a naturally
occurring phenomenom.

So is everything else we can perceive.....

To say death is this phenomenom is ridiculous:
"death produced a bat and a rain forrest" - utterly ridiculous.

Most strawmen are. Natural selection is only part of the mechanism that
produced bats and rain forests. Selection is a either/or process. Either
the individual lives, or it dies. It either reproduces, or it doesn't.
The death of some of the population changes the allele frequency in that
population, because dead individuals don't pass on their genes. Rain
forests themselves are not the product of natural selection, but the plants
that make up the rainforest are. Bats exist because the failed "bats" did
not survive. Only the successful ones did.

If I
had said that the Group would be in an uproar.

Again, Ray, it's your strawman, not his.

Of course the Group
will ignore your ignorance.

Hint, it's not HIS ignorance on display here.

The simple truism of death is not a
mechanism.

Death is part of a mechanism, however. Dead organsims don't reproduce.
Natural selection is the concept that one has to be alive to pass on one's
genes to the next generation.

Your understanding of natural selection is how a lot of
Creationists intentionally misrepresent natural selection. This is why
I said you are ignorant concerning your own theory.

Ray, how can you lecture someone on a theory you have absolutely no idea
about? Your ideas about evolution and natural selection are utterly
wrong. You are arguing from gross ignorance.



Therefore there is no such thing as a
"slight modification performed on an organism by the causal agent of
natural selection"


You are shockingly ignorant of evolutionary theory.

Ray, you are shockingly wrong here. It's amazing that you can't seem to
grasp that you are wrong.


Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a *population* over
time.

Now we can see why you are so ignorant. This is what happens when you
learn biology from a public forum and not from scholars.

Ray, one of the most influential and famous evolutionary biologists defines
evolution as:

"Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of
populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of
generations."

Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.,
Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Another textbook author defines it as:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency
of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes,
Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974



Can you cite any "scholar" who agrees with your definition?



You have parroted a gene-centric definition of change - not evolution
in reality. I suggest that you learn about the claims of
modification.

Microevolution is evolution that does not lead to the formation of
different species.


Agreed.

In which case, your claim that microevolution doesn't happen is absurd.
You are denying that dog breeds exist.





Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
population.

Variation (by mutation, or whatever word makes you happy) happens first.

That was presupposed and never denied.

Yet you still get the idea wrong.


Some organisms leave more descendants than others.

Another simple truism....

So, your denial of microevolution is even more bizarre.....


The variations
occurring in the organisms with more descendants become more widespread
in the population.

But this discussion was never talking about evolution at population
level, but organism level.

Ray let me say this plainly, and simply; EVOLUTION HAPPENS AT POPULATION
LEVEL, NOT AT "ORGANISM LEVEL". Individuals don't evolve, populations
do!! Since you won't accept it unless a "scholar" says it:

http://www.brookscole.com/biology_d/templates/student_resources/0534575463_starrtaggart/outlines/ch18.html"Individuals Don't Evolve-Populations Do"http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_2.html&text=t"Microevolution: Individuals Don't Evolve, Populations Do"http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/nat-sel.htm"; One important thing thing to note here is that populations, notindividuals, evolve: individuals can have genetic mutations, but unlessthose mutations are passed along to offspring and thus into the gene pool ofthe population, no real change has occurred."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.> We know that populations change because a> modified organism has bred and passed said modification into the> population.Which is microevolution. You have just admitted that microevolutionhappens>But since you know nothing about modifications, by your> own admission, it is useless t
o go any further.Ray, your claim about "modification" is mistaken, misguided, utterlywrongheaded, and totally without foundation.>>> Variations which kill an organism, or cause it not to>> have viable descendants, are filtered out of the population. Evolution.>>>> > This is what the general theory of evolution claims;>>>> Not really. You should learn some actual biology before claiming to>> understand it.>>>> > this is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.>>>> Apparently you have spent two years constructing a straw man. No-one>> accepts your definition of microevolution. What you define as>> microevolution never happens, and has never been claimed to happen.>>>> I have always said that what this Group believes and what scholars> publish are two different things. I am, of course, correct.Ray, "what scholars publish" does not support your claims. I've givenseveral examples above that contradict your claims. You are wrong, asusual.>>>>>>> > I think it is import
ant at this point to simply tell me if you>> > understand wh!
at I hav
e said.>>>> I think so. It would help if you told us where you got your definition>> of evolution.>>>> It would help even more if you had a basic 101 grasp of what your own> theory claims and proposes.Ray, like usual, your 101 grasp is wrong. Where did you get yourdefinition, if you didn't pull it out of your nether regions?>>> [minor snip]>>>> >>> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately>> >>> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the>> >>> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk>> >>> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is>> >>> described.>> >> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution>> >> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.>>>> > False!>>>> > The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain>> > HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin">> > with a metaphor. This is why the phrase
"natural selection" is in the>> > title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural>> > Selection....">>>> So? Everyone already accepted that evolution had occurred. Older forms>> are different from modern forms.>>>>>>>> > You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed>> > except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.>>>> > This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from>> > causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern>> > theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means>> > of modification."snip>>>> Actually there is some argument over this. Some biologists think that>> genetic drift is as important as natural selection.>>>> I said "the main but not the exclusive means...." - SHEESH!But you are still wrong. Natural selection does not cause "modification"of an individual.>>>>>>>> > 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?>>>> > 'How
' is very important because it presupposes that God or the>>!
> super
natural is not the agent of causation.>>>> No, it doesn't. "God (or the supernatural) did it" can be an answer to a>> "How?" question, but asking the question does not presuppose the answer.>>>> You do not understand or your comprehension is impaired or you have> made a simple mistake.Actually, Ray, like usual, you are making the mistake, and are too ignorantto know it.snip>> >>> Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with>> >>> evolutionary scientists - everything.>>>> I would really like to see the reference to an evolutionary biologist>> who agrees with your definition of microevolution.Shall your audience take it as an admission you can't support your claim?snip>>>> > If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!>>>> Ignore the presuppositions. Simply state whether or not you think the>> frequency of inherited traits happens in populations.>>>> Facts or evidence interpreted to support the occurrence of evolution> are a false int
erpretation of said facts or evidence.Why? Just because you refuse to accept the facts, and ignore the evidence?>>>>>>> >> or whether natural selection occurs at all.>>>> > As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing>> > nature, of course not.>>>> As one of the main agents, and partly responsible for producing the>> diversity of biological species, why not?>>>> Because the evidence says God is supervising nature hands-on.What evidence is that, Ray?> Evolution and natural selection are not needed to explain nature; and> these proposals are false.Whether or not they are "needed" they are still the best explanation for theevidence. Retreat to "Goddidit" does not answer the questions.snip>> Oddly enough, Steven is more rationally connected to reality than you>> are. You seem to think that the truth about the real world can be>> discovered in books. Steven agrees with almost everyone else that the>> best way to study reality is to examine it directly.>>
Al least Rupert admits he has no source for his views.Rup!
ert did
not "admit" anything of the sort.> This explains> his massive ignorance of his own theory.What explains your massive ignorance? Rupert's statements were correct.You are wrong.>> I only replied to your message out of courtesy because it was somewhat> long and because it was view centered containing no ad homs.And you were afraid to answer other ones....DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Some stuff on Baldwin Effect
    ... evolution with natural selection as an exception based on the Baldwin ... "Adaptive evolution may not require neither natural ... irreversible on the level of genome without the difference in the ... the level of whole genome and a look to the organism as a ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... "microevolution," you did not insist that any particular mechanism was ... many biologists would probably go along with you ... on that) or natural selection as the cause of change in a population ... selection is "...not the exclusive cause" of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... mutations are not in fact the cause of variation? ... about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted ... that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are ... I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... You insist that microevolution does not occur. ... performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection. ... You have appeared to miss the point that I am talking, as you are, about individual organisms. ... of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alternative Mechanisms of Evolution?
    ... natural selection is not confined to the evolution hypothesis ... > does not add any new information to the genetic code of the organism. ... > one that relied on the slow, random process of mutation and natural ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading