[_ Old Earth _] Question about evolution...

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, what does all that prove?

Proof, as you know, is not part of science. It merely goes with the preponderance of evidence. That clearly shows that not only is it possible for a complex eye to form, we still have all sorts of intermediates still living.

You said that there are example of intermediate eyes in nature.

Yes. The argument was that it was not possible for a complex eye to form by steps. The steps still exist. End of argument.

Remember that I asked about the human eye.

Don't remember that. But if you'd tell me what about the human eye makes it different than the eye of the octopus, that would make it impossible to have evolved by steps, I think we could deal with that.

None of those species you showed have any link to a human. Those examples just show Darwins theroy of how the eye developed by using different eyes of different animals. It may help a suggestion that some creatures are less evloved than others, but it does not show in nature that these eyes evolved from more primitive ones.

It certainly is very good evidence for that fact. In fact, they demonstrate precisely what creationists have declared to be impossible.

 

[Asimov]

The ones with the tiniest brogthnors don't get to have as many kids, so tiny brogthnors as a trait in genetic code, is bred out of the species. The environmental pressure is whatever makes a tiny brogthnor a bad thing to have. The evolution that occurs is when Timmy "Big Brogthnor" O'Callahan has a large family and passes on his genetic code to more individuals than Johnny "Tiny" MacMartin.

And then a population of Brogthnors move to a small island where being small means eating less food an using less resources is an advantage, and the big guys are selected out and the tiny guys are in.

 

[Asimov]

Small changes exist, but it's evolution. Adaptation is evolution due to environmental pressure.

Enviromental pressure has never been a peice of evolutions peramiters before this last post. Genetic shift, mutation, natural selection, even adaptation by allele frequency, not enviromental pressure. Besides, I thought all of these things must happen for evolution? Otherwise, as me and Keebs have argued about before, you are making evolution and adaptaion the same thing, which they are not.

Dude....environmental pressure is a huge part of evolution. Look at the Coelacanth. It's been relatively unchanged for millions of years.

go to talkorigins.org, go to browse, and under evolution, read the introduction to evolution. It helps a lot. Trust me, brutus, if you have any interest in understanding this theory, you MUST read this.

 

[Barbarian]

Enviromental pressure has never been a peice of evolutions peramiters before this last post.

It was in Darwin's Book.

Genetic shift, mutation, natural selection, even adaptation by allele frequency, not enviromental pressure.

Without such pressure, there can be no natural selection. The proper term, BTW, is "selective pressure."

Besides, I thought all of these things must happen for evolution?

Mutation and natural selection. But natural selection counts only in context of the environment.

Otherwise, as me and Keebs have argued about before, you are making evolution and adaptaion the same thing, which they are not.

Adaptation is part of evolution. Read "The Beak of the Finch" to understand how.

 

[Blazin Bones]

If enviromental pressure is so important to Evolution why is it the first time any of you eveolutionists have mentioned. As to Barbarian's idea, I've always seen evolution and Adaptation as the same thing. I have not been shown otherwise.

 

[Asimov]

If enviromental pressure is so important to Evolution why is it the first time any of you eveolutionists have mentioned. As to Barbarian's idea, I've always seen evolution and Adaptation as the same thing. I have not been shown otherwise.

It's been mentioned before, brutus. We discussed adaptation before, so we discussed 'selective pressure', or environmental pressure before.

A population cannot consciously adapt to the environment genetically. It is only through selection that a population can adapt genetically. A population does not have to evolve due to selective pressure, though, that's the difference.

 

[Blazin Bones]

A population cannot consciously adapt to the environment genetically. It is only through selection that a population can adapt genetically. A population does not have to evolve due to selective pressure, though, that's the difference.

So if a population doesn't have to evolve due to selective pressure, why do you call it evolution. It's still just an adaptation, even if it is adatation through sub-concious behavioral changes.

 

[Asimov]

A population cannot consciously adapt to the environment genetically. It is only through selection that a population can adapt genetically. A population does not have to evolve due to selective pressure, though, that's the difference.

So if a population doesn't have to evolve due to selective pressure, why do you call it evolution. It's still just an adaptation, even if it is adatation through sub-concious behavioral changes.

hmm...let's look at what evolve means:

e·volve Audio pronunciation of "evolve" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v. tr.

1.
1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: “the schemes he evolved to line his purse†(S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.

Because it's a gradual change. As a result of evolution, populations adapt. It's not a sub-conscious adaptation, brutus. The mutations that arise which allow for adaptation to an environment are random, some species cannot evolve, and become extinct.

 

[Blazin Bones]

The American Heritage definition. The only thing with the third definition is that characteristic changes by the evolutionary process. So far no example can show any evolutionary step except adaptation. That's why it's just adaptation.

 

[Asimov]

The American Heritage definition. The only thing with the third definition is that characteristic changes by the evolutionary process. So far no example can show any evolutionary step except adaptation. That's why it's just adaptation.

What are you talking about?? Neutral mutations are adaptations to nothing! Adaptation to an environment is characterized by selective pressures.

Mutations that arise that are beneficial to the organism may be an adaptation, but is not always an adaptation. Neutral mutations are never adaptations, because they are not selected based on advantages.

 

[Blazin Bones]

What are you talking about?? Neutral mutations are adaptations to nothing! Adaptation to an environment is characterized by selective pressures.

Mutations that arise that are beneficial to the organism may be an adaptation, but is not always an adaptation. Neutral mutations are never adaptations, because they are not selected based on advantages.

Then what makes the change of adaptation due to "enviromental pressure" an evolution. You just agreed to adaptaion occuring without evolution, so what makes an Evolutionary adaptation?

 

[Asimov]

Then what makes the change of adaptation due to "enviromental pressure" an evolution. You just agreed to adaptaion occuring without evolution, so what makes an Evolutionary adaptation?

Huh? No I didn't. I said Adaptation is evolution, but evolution is not always adaptation.

Evolution is the change in alleles in a gene pool over time. If we have a predominantly green eyed population, and then ten years later we have a predominantly brown eyed population, that's evolution.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Mutations that arise that are beneficial to the organism may be an adaptation,...

Did I misunderstand this part?

As to adaptation, why must it be a part of evolution? Nowhere in the definition of adaptation does it say the change must be genetic. As for the eye scenario, How is that evolution, and not just coincidence?

 

[Asimov]

Mutations that arise that are beneficial to the organism may be an adaptation,...

Did I misunderstand this part?

Yes.

As to adaptation, why must it be a part of evolution? Nowhere in the definition of adaptation does it say the change must be genetic.

You're serious?

As for the eye scenario, How is that evolution, and not just coincidence?

You're serious....

 

[Asimov]

Ok, Brutus, since you seem to be so averse to readin the link I gave you, let me quote:

"A trait evolved for its current utility is an adaptation; one that evolved for another utility is an exaptation. An example of an exaptation is a penguin's wing. Penguins evolved from flying ancestors; now they are flightless and use their wings for swimming."

 

[Blazin Bones]

Okay, if your going to claim a species as evolution over adaptation, you're going to have to prove a link between Penguins and the "lessevolved" species. I don't think you can prove such a link.

 

[Asimov]

Okay, if your going to claim a species as evolution over adaptation, you're going to have to prove a link between Penguins and the "lessevolved" species. I don't think you can prove such a link.

What are you talking about?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Okay, if your going to claim a species as evolution over adaptation, you're going to have to prove a link between Penguins and the "lessevolved" species. I don't think you can prove such a link.

What are you talking about?

If you can prove that adaptation is not independant of evolution through this Penguin example, you need to provide proof of the penguins ancestor. then you need to show how the genetics changed from form to form.

 

[Asimov]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":180df]Okay, if your going to claim a species as evolution over adaptation, you're going to have to prove a link between Penguins and the "lessevolved" species. I don't think you can prove such a link.

What are you talking about?

If you can prove that adaptation is not independant of evolution through this Penguin example, you need to provide proof of the penguins ancestor. then you need to show how the genetics changed from form to form.[/quote:180df]

Penguins have wings....the wings don't work....they use them to swim now....

 

[Blazin Bones]

Duh! You know I'm asking you to prove the link between a previous "ancestor" and them. Then you have to prove the change was genetic otherwise it's still just adaptation.