Teach "Evolution," Not Darwinian Evolution

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    What would you say?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Remember, for every 0.1% of mutations which could manifest as something good, in combination with many other potentially good ones, the 99.9% come along with them which hurt viability. So for every one step, forward, there would be ninety-nine steps backward, so Darwinian morphing from goo to you is impossible.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the people reading this thread will see how you weaseled out of answering.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    No, I answered it.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    okay, you said "from goo to you" is impossible.
    we are not talking about abiogenesis we are talking evolution.
    i agree that abiogenesis hasn't been solved.

    where's the flaw in my reasoning iceage?
     
  9. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Two errors here. One, most mutations are neutral, being neither beneficial nor detrimental. Two, detrimental mutations are typically selected against so they are not passed on. Meanwhile beneficial mutations are passed on at an increased rate (this would be the evolutionary definition of beneficial, increased ability to procreate).

    A little logic and it is easy to see that natural selection will cause beneficial mutations to accrue quite quickly, while culling any detrimental ones.

    ~Raithere
     
  10. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    A "good" mutation could be considered good not until it manifests with many other "good" complimentary mutations for a "good" morphological change, so mutations which could, in compliment with others, become a good morphological change aren't passed on.

    Few morphological changes in nature have been caused by mutation, about the only one I'm aware of is the webbed paws of polar bears (for better swimming), but I don't expect the bear will morph into the duck, just a little logic for ya' there Raith.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't know wether the webbed feet of polar bears are a mutation or a natural variation that enabled them to survive better when swimming from ice floe to ice floe. Your incredulity stems from an incomprehension of the vast timescales involved. Ducks are birds, envision how a bird morphs into a duck, envision how a four legged creature like the hippo might spend more and more time in the water, eventually, like the duck, become better adapted to the ocean, it's limbs becoming flippers, it's nose moving to the top of it's head. That's what happened in real life. Whales and hippos are closely related. You may never see a noticeable change in a thousand years, but over millions, they add up. The kind of "logic" and common sense that tell you animals don't "morph" before our eyes does not apply when considering the eons that life existed here without people. But that doesn't fit in with you religion, so you are intent on being condescending, and you have no basis for it.

    Evolution happened. To paraphrase you, go fucking google it.
     
  12. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Do you mean evolution per se, or Darwinian evolution?

    Assuming you actually are talking about foolish Darwinian evolution, since you're talking about hippos changing into whales (beam me up Scottie), and as you say "that's what happened," well, I certainly don't have anything to add to that.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Then shut up, moron.
     
  14. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Your wish is just that.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    My wish is that people say intelligent or interesting things.
     
  16. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Like "then shut up moron?"
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No...that's what an intelligent person says after 17 pages of unimaginative cookie cutter brainwashed misinformed fundamentalist unscientific irrational hogwash.
     
  18. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    Darwinian evolution is plainly false.
    Creationism is patently stupid

    so what is the answer
    try
    Symbiogenisis

    All that is alive is one single super-organism.
    Sadly, to understand this you will have to really understand the biological sciences.
    Just another example of what is plainly obvious is scientifically incorrect.
    Seldom what is obviously correct is actually correct.
     
  19. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    I'm impressed that you think the chances of a beneficial mutation coexisting with other beneficial mutations is as incredibly high as 0.1%, or one in a thousand.

    The key words right there are "almost always hurt". Almost always. If they were almost always beneficial, evolution would be a runaway operation that would be plainly visible (and probably would end up wiping everything out!)

    After 34 pages you still seem to think that one organism we see today "morphs" into another organism we see today, despite the fact that you have been repeatedly informed that nothing of the sort takes place.

    I, for one, have never understood what it is about the Darwinian model that certain classes of people find so objectionable. This thread title says "teach evolution not Darwinian evolution". Evolution is a fact, it is true. Darwinian natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution appears to be driven in a direction of greater progress and efficiency of the organism. But quite apart from its explicatory value, it has always seemed to me to be a cast-iron mathematical law that could not be avoided if you tried. Darwinian selection has to happen, given a self-reproducing population of entities, and the mutation of the instructions that go to make those entities. It is why Australia is plagued by myxomatosis-resistant rabbits. It is why governments all over the world are concerned about the appearance of human-to-human-transmissable avian 'flu. What I'm saying is that maybe the fossil record is just some giant misunderstood coincidence. But Natural Selection is an immutable law of Nature.
     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Show that it is plainly false.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what is the difference between darwinian evolution and evolution?

    iceage
    you agreed with both my postulates but not the conclusion and yet you failed to point out the flaw in my logic.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Except for the modern minor revision to Darwin's model you are 100% correct here. Darwin did not know about genes etc, and thought that evolution would be a slow change, never any significant difference between parents and next generation. We now know that a gene can mutate and very rarely result in some significant difference and rarely one of these "significant new gene events" the difference helps the individual disproportionately send that gene down to future generations. For example, cycle cell anemia was probably a mutation that in regions where malaria is common aided survival, but now for black in the US it is a negative asset and will eventually be eliminated again - unless their environment changes again (perhaps it may help cope with Urban pollution but I doubt that as it make the hemoglobin less efficient carrier of oxygen, but if it decreases the attachment rate of CO more, perhaps it could etc.)

    In any case, your POV is 100% correct - Evolution by Darwin's basic idea (selection of the fittest {for that environment})is an unavoidable conclusion of anyone who can think. We now even know the mechanism by which it works.
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "Selection for that environment is an unavoidable conclusion of anyone who can think," well duh, that's why I started this thread, you describe evolution per se, like "caucasoids" having greater survivability in the more extreme latitudes, and "negroids" having greater survivability in the more middle latitudes, so I'm glad you "can think," but such selection does not explain how tree shrews supposedly morphed into humans, and how fish supposedly morphed into birds, which obviously, is shear lunacy, such is the plight of the Darwinist.

    You call it Darwin's "basic idea," which you realize is natural selection of syngameons within given environments. Species is actually a meaningless term, as "different species" can mate and produce offspring.
     

Share This Page