Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
its chalked up to any succesive change in generations per adaptive change to an environment. im referring to evolutionary theory, specifcally its origins and the main problems with it. for something to keep changing without something constantly changing it, and it changes for the better BY ITSELF, then it must have started from somewhere. if thats not down pat theres no way you can possibly comment on how the changes work because you cant reckon the zero point.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
Because it seems as though you are referring to something else. -
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
Congratulations on your semantic ether.... -
Common misconception in evolutions. Things are changing for the better. This is false. Changes occurring by evolution are solely based on adapting to the current environment more successfully. This does not mean that creatures alive today are better than all that have come before them. Instead it means the current populations represent better traits for the current environment than the immediate predecessors.
Imagine for a moment a population of organisms (set A) which evolved from another set (set
. This second set (set evolved from a third (set C). Now set A will outperform set B while set B will outperform set C but set A may not outperform set C. Lets say we start with a population of yeast (set C). We drop the temperature of the environment and we get a new adaption that outperforms set C. We call this population set B. We isolate set B then raise the temperature and a new adaption arises (set A). This new population outperforms set B in warmer temps. Now set A and C both are successful in warm climates however set C might be better adapted than set A. All set A is good for is beating set B.
Evolution is not about a continual rise or improvement. Simply a little better than your most recent ancestors. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
exactly. ? playing games now. if we come from a common ancestor then that had to evolve from something and the probability of it randomly occuring that a one celled organism popped out of nowhere and decided to turn into other ? is not good. ? got evolution as some kind of sentient process or something lol -
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children. -
The bolded is also referring to natural selection (perhaps "adaptive evolution" or "survival of the fittest", depending on how it's interpreted); neither of which is the definition of "evolution".
its chalked up to any succesive change in generations per adaptive change to an environment. im referring to evolutionary theory, specifcally its origins and the main problems with it. for something to keep changing without something constantly changing it, and it changes for the better BY ITSELF, then it must have started from somewhere. if thats not down pat theres no way you can possibly comment on how the changes work because you cant reckon the zero point.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.
As I mentioned in my above post, the means that allows for organisms (in this case eukaryotes) to keep changing is the genetically-varying process of meiosis; from which, "beneficial" change is only one of the outcomes. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
-
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
-
Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection, as is mentioned by the underlined. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection, as is mentioned by the underlined.
Check the blue text...
"Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift"
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
-
? gettin ethered from all angles. It don't look good for you out here, bro
-
Did you even read the entire quote you just posted?
-
Exactly, the underlined is what I've been referring to. I never said natural selection isn't an important process, I've said that natural selection is not the definition of evolution. It is the result of the process of genetic mutation that I mentioned previously; however that very genetic mutation is evolution in and of itself. Without genetic mutation, there would be no genetic changes in eukaryotes between generations, meaning no new traits to get passed on as "natural selection" in the first place.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection, as is mentioned by the underlined.
Check the blue text...
"Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift"
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
To simplify: an instance of genetic mutation in offspring is evolution on a microscopic scale, while the accumulation of this "micro-evolution" over time can lead to "natural selection"; which is evolution on a macroscopic scale.
So, because "natural selection" begins with genetic mutation (a form of evolution), natural selection is not the definition of "evolution". -
wrote: »Did you even read the entire quote you just posted?
@Jaded Righteousness....
Indeed cockrider....
And seeing that YOU ARE THE MAIN ? that been using adaptation in your arguments, you looking real silly right now...."Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift"
Furthermore, natural selection is but one area where evolution fails....
You only saw about 40seconds of the clip....
-
I don't think you did. -
No way in hell my ancestors would have a civilized conversation with you after talking that atheist ? and telling them the spiritual realm that was central to their lives is just "fairy tale ? ". You would get yo ass slapped AT BEST. etc. etc.^^^^...my ?
The only ether in this thread!!!!!
Bambu is a...cockrider....
-
You only saw about 40seconds of the clip....you could skip to 1:35 -2:40 if you like....
That was the part you suggested to view. That was your go-to spot. Your argument fails, duke.
-
And seeing that YOU ARE THE MAIN ? that been using adaptation in your arguments..
Doesn't matter. You weren't doing any good arguing against my points anyway and it's not like that changes the fact that you obviously (1.) don't know how to read or (2.) have comprehension problems.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, the underlined is what I've been referring to. I never said natural selection isn't an important process, I've said that natural selection is not the definition of evolution. It is the result of the process of genetic mutation that I mentioned previously; however that very genetic mutation is evolution in and of itself. Without genetic mutation, there would be no genetic changes in eukaryotes between generations, meaning no new traits to get passed on as "natural selection" in the first place.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection, as is mentioned by the underlined.
Check the blue text...
"Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift"
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
To simplify: an instance of genetic mutation in offspring is evolution on a microscopic scale, while the accumulation of this "micro-evolution" over time can lead to "natural selection"; which is evolution on a macroscopic scale.
So, because "natural selection" begins with genetic mutation (a form of evolution), natural selection is not the definition of "evolution".
See you arguing semantics.....
I am not arguing that natural selection is the definition of evolution.... nice straw man...
I am arguing that the theory of evolution is not the theory of evolution without natural selection....
That is the evidence that we have established after a 40sec video clip....
There appears to be a consensus that natural selection is non-valid..........
Are you willing to argue a model of evolution minus adaptation???
-
When I asked what the definition of "evolution" being referred to was (here), you replied with a video (here) of which you referred me to a portion that spoke of natural selection (here).Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, the underlined is what I've been referring to. I never said natural selection isn't an important process, I've said that natural selection is not the definition of evolution. It is the result of the process of genetic mutation that I mentioned previously; however that very genetic mutation is evolution in and of itself. Without genetic mutation, there would be no genetic changes in eukaryotes between generations, meaning no new traits to get passed on as "natural selection" in the first place.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly, "creationist v. evolution", not "creationist v. a mechanism of evolution" or "creationist v. natural selection".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Natural selection is non-random; as is mentioned by the quote you posted here. Random genetic mutation can be passed on and spread throughout multiple generations, or it may only occur randomly for one generation in only one of the offspring without being passed on at all; this is what makes it broader than "natural selection"--which is gradual and accumulating.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Yes, random mutation; which is broader. Unlike most body cells which undergo "mitosis" to divide--creating an exact copy unless something goes wrong; when germ cells (also known as sex cells) divide, they undergo "meiosis"--producing haploid cells with a recombination of half of the original chromosomes.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly.LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
It is a mechanism of evolution, that is not the same as being the definition "evolution".
The quote you just posted and my above post seem to be an agreement.
So, as I also said in my above post, if that is what you're referring to as the definition for "evolution", it would be incorrect.
Is there an evolution theory without this "mechanism."????
For this reason, when fertilization occurs, the resulting zygote--which is a diploid cell resulting in the combination of a sperm and egg cell--is genetically unique from the two parents. The result of this can be beneficial (which may be labeled as natural selection if further passed on through sexual selection or survivability); however it can also detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring.
This change in genetic makeup over generations is a form of biological evolution, and it occurs every time organisms such as humans have children.
You do understand that natural selection encompasses elements that are "detrimental or inconsequential to the offspring"......
How you gonna try to argue the theory of evolution without its "key mechanism"???......
I'm arguing that a mechanism of evolution (natural selection in this case) is not the same as the definition of evolution.
That's cool. However we were in the middle of a creationist(I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creation) debate.....
Again,
"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms."
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
This is why I asked whether the definition "evolution" was being referred to, since "natural selection" is not the definition of "evolution"; because evolution can occur without being natural selection, as is mentioned by the underlined.
Check the blue text...
"Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift"
The attempts to remove natural selection from the process and theory of evolution are preposterous......
To simplify: an instance of genetic mutation in offspring is evolution on a microscopic scale, while the accumulation of this "micro-evolution" over time can lead to "natural selection"; which is evolution on a macroscopic scale.
So, because "natural selection" begins with genetic mutation (a form of evolution), natural selection is not the definition of "evolution".
See you arguing semantics.....
I am not arguing that natural selection is the definition of evolution.... nice straw man...
I am arguing that the theory of evolution is not the theory of evolution without natural selection....
That is the evidence that we have established after a 40sec video clip....
There appears to be a consensus that natural selection is non-valid..........
Are you willing to argue a model of evolution minus adaptation???
Without natural selection, evolution still occurs through genetic mutation; without genetic mutation, natural selection does not occur. Even assuming that video somehow "disproves" natural selection, that does nothing to disprove the underlying process of genetic mutation; which is both the most common form of evolution (it happens every single time eukaryotes sexually reproduce) and the source of any "natural selection".
This is why I initially asked what the definition of "evolution" being referred to was, because attempting to disprove natural selection does nothing in the way of disproving biological evolution. -
The True Flesh wrote: »Remember when there were all those people on this board promoting that whole "Evolution ain't ? " stuff and the true educated people came in here and sh*tted all over that nonsense?
.......Ahh good times.
PEACE -
Natural Selection is one of the clearest truths of evolution. It is accepted by the ID side, in part because it is so easy to reproduce in the lab, as the driving force of micro-evolution. In the case where macro-evolution is accept by ID (Michael Behe for instance) Natural Selection is the mechanism of evolution.
One of the great powers that humans harnessed even before they understood it was this selection process. Human have for years used Artificial Selection to breed new crops and new species of animals for our use.
Also I would have to agree with Bambu that without Natural Selection the theory of Evolution falls apart since it is the driving force of evolution. While I agree that mutation and change occur in living things and therefore variation would still be introduced we would lose the central pillar of how those changes accumulate within a species.
*EDIT* After rereading the posts it seems Gold_Certificate is arguing the definition of evolution does not include natural selection. This is correct. Bambu is arguing the Theory of Evolution heavily relies on Natural Selection and he is correct.
Without Natural Selection evolution would still occur. Evolution at this level would be defined as a change in a population genetic makeup. This is easily demonstrable in a lab. In fact their has never been an experiment where genetic information was tracked over time that changes did not occur.
However Natural Selection we would not understand why these changes were occurring because when we examine them they tend to appear to be non-random.
-
"This is why I initially asked what the definition of "evolution" being referred to was, because attempting to disprove natural selection does nothing in the way of disproving biological evolution. "
I have to disagree with this statement. Biological Evolution is a fact. It can not be disproven. Every time we look for it we find it. And realize this is just the change of genetic information within a population over time. The fact this occurs has lead to the various theories explaining evolution.
Disproving Natural Selection would turn the Theory of Evolution on its head.
This discussion has been closed.