Fun with Evolutionists

[rogue06]

Greetings easyboy. Fair warning, super will misquote and misrepresent any legitimate source he finds, and even use sources like UFO Digest and the like if it suits him. Super is also a true believer in Lamarkian genetics. As to his other beliefs...

[easyboy201]

Greetings, Easyboy, and welcome to TWeb.

Supersport has some real issues with the Theory of Evolution--well, let me state the situation more accurately. Supe has a very limited understanding of the ToE, but objects to what he badly misunderstands. I'm not sure there is a point to asking the question that can be logically understood, because Supe isn't attacking the theory of evolution, he's attacking his own poorly-understood parody of the ToE.

So what do you mean by the ToE - you mean origins science or observable natural selection?
The two things get frequently confused with one another.

[easyboy201]

Greetings easyboy. Fair warning, super will misquote and misrepresent any legitimate source he finds, and even use sources like UFO Digest and the like if it suits him. Super is also a true believer in Lamarkian genetics. As to his other beliefs...

:D I suppose what really matters is the veracity of the argument, not really the sources... but UFO digest? I'd be confused to how THAT would relate... ;)

[easyboy201]

Well...see the whole theory hinges on what the object of selection is. If the object of selection is genes, then evolution proceeds one way...if the object of selection is the organism itself it happens a different way. If the object of selection is the group or species it happens a different way. Evolutionists often like to use both theories: both the phyletic darwinian one and the punctual one at the same time. But see, ultimately they have to choose a mechanism. By that I mean they have to choose the object of selection. It can't be all at the same time. And see the trick here is that multiple Ph.D evolutionists have multiple views on what the object of selection is -- thus, when one of these guys rattles off an answer, they know I'm going to pound them over the head with a quote from a famous evolutionist. This of course will embarrass them because it makes it look like they've been believing in something that's not actually true....which is, in fact, the case. In short, I'm making them show their cards -- which they are refusing to do because it gives them away and allows me to attack their position.

Don't the genes dictate the organism itself? Isn't the whole identity of that organism within the genes?
How can you seperate the object from being the organism or the genes when they both relate to each other?

So by showing their cards they are supposed to say what mechanism they believe in? But is it really all in the mechanism or all in the definition? As in, that what they call the ToE is not the natural progession or necessary inference of observable science...but yet it is fallaciously claimed to be...?

[Minnesota]

So what do you mean by the ToE - you mean origins science or observable natural selection?
The two things get frequently confused with one another

Justin Eiler seems to have left the building, so I'll answer in his stead.

The two only seem to get confused among creationists, sometimes purposefully. In any event, ToE only deals with change, not origins, Non-Christians using the term almost invariably understand this, so I imagine Justin is using it properly. When Christians use the term there is far less certainly.



I see you just replied to supersport. Well, don't complain you weren't warned.

[easyboy201]

Justin Eiler seems to have left the building, so I'll answer in his stead.

The two only seem to get confused among creationists, sometimes purposefully. In any event, ToE only deals with change, not origins, Non-Christians using the term almost invariably understand this, so I imagine Justin is using it properly. When Christians use the term there is far less certainly.



I see you just replied to supersport. Well, don't complain you weren't warned.

Don't you think just "change" is a little ambigious though? Shouldn't it be more clearly defined?

[Minnesota]

Don't you think just "change" is a little ambigious though? Shouldn't it be more clearly defined?

From your other posts I assumed you understood the implication However, if you actually need it explained to you I'll see what I can do.

[easyboy201]

From your other posts I assumed you understood the implication However, if you actually need it explained to you I'll see what I can do.

I understand the differences between different types of evolution, but you defined it purely as "change" which is an ambigious term, that leds to people not knowing what you're talking about.

So if all you say is "evolution" and then define it as "change" - it doesn't actually explain anything. Evolution is one of those words, that as you seem to also understand, is very often misused.

In scientific terms, it needs to be clearly defined... if you say "change" - WHAT change? Implications of that change? Etc.

[supersport]

I understand the differences between different types of evolution, but you defined it purely as "change" which is an ambigious term, that leds to people not knowing what you're talking about.

So if all you say is "evolution" and then define it as "change" - it doesn't actually explain anything. Evolution is one of those words, that as you seem to also understand, is very often misused.

In scientific terms, it needs to be clearly defined... if you say "change" - WHAT change? Implications of that change? Etc.

Good point...this is exactly why I asked them what the object of selection is......but as you can see they won't answer. I want them to tell me if evolution happens slowly, gradually over time or more quickly, punctually. But the reason they won't answer me is because they know they need both...but they can't have both because that would imply different objects of selection. Most Darwinists believe the whole organism is the object of selection, while most neo-darwinists are more reductionist and believe it's the gene that's the object of selection. They have to cover all the bases, so these guys soak up everything -- including all lamarckian-style mechanisms. It's like a 3-ring circus.

[FreezBee]

In scientific terms, it needs to be clearly defined... if you say "change" - WHAT change? Implications of that change? Etc.

Minnesota contrasted 'change' to 'origins' most likely meaning that the ToE does not deal with origins of life, only with how lifeforms change - and that latter not relating to an individual organism, but to which lifeforms existed at some specific time. This is the standard definition, and of course we can use someb Thomistic rhetoric to give a definition that'll take up 20 pages without anyone getting any wiser, but what would the point be?

- FreezBee

[Roy]

Good point...this is exactly why I asked them what the object of selection is......but as you can see they won't answer.

The organism, when viewed as the outcome of a collection of genes.

Genes plus environmental factors (nature + nurture) contribute to the development of an organism; natural selection determines how successfully an organism's genes (as a package) are passed on. Individual genes or specific combinations of genes may have sufficient effect as to greatly affect an organism's reproductive potential, by e.g. causing cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome or haemophilia, but it is still the organism, complete with all it's genes, that gets selected.

Kin selection/altruism does not change this; in cases where an organism acts in away that assists others which share its genes (e.g. by raising nephews, or letting itself be eaten by its children) selection is still operating at the organism level rather than at the gene level since kin selection acts to propagate the organism's genes as a whole, rather than individually.

There are a few possible arguments for higher levels of selection, notably in hive, colony or tribal species, where natural selection may operate en masse, but there is usually either sufficient interchange of fertile members between groups, or so few fertile individuals (e.g. queen bees), that that it can still be considered selection of individuals.

The above is of course just my hopefully well-informed opinion, and others may correct me.

The reason no-one else has answered is not likely to be that they couldn't, but more probably some combination of

1. not expecting you to understand the answer
2. not expecting you to read the answer
3. not expecting you to honestly evaluate the answer
4. not being willing to waste their time on such a pathetic dilettante
5. not having recovered from your exposition on Atlantean civilisation and Terran intumescence
6. not possessing sufficent ennui (or too much)

Roy

[FreezBee]

The above is of course just my hopefully well-informed opinion, and others may correct me.

You wouldn't mind a slight addendum then, would you?

The main level of selection is the gene level. Genes exist for much longer than otganisms, why the organism level is not the level, where selection occurs. Also consider that the same gene may occur in organisms from different species. The gene is here considered to be a particular DNA pattern, not the DNA molecule, of course.


- FreezBee

[lao tzu]

I'm not your puppet, I don't follow your orders, and I don't waste my time with supid questions.

I love unwitting irony. I've mentioned that before.

Supersport, you have zero, zilch, nada, neel leverage for demanding that others answer your questions when you run from questions yourself. That, in case you need another tap on the noggin from Mr. Clue, is the point of my reference to you as a "hypocrite."

You people have not falsified one thing I posted on that other OP....when you try to do so then I will respond.

As we watched that streak of yellow darting away from your last thread, some of us, having seen it before, on multiple boards, figured you'd try to toss up another thread in an attempt to evade the lingering issues with your prior thesis.

Sorry, it's not gonna work this time. You can answer the questions you precipitated here, or you can answer them there, but you're not going to be able to run from them anymore anywhere on this board.

Here are two of these "supid [sic]" questions you've left behind:

• How does a boating trip by the Chinese falsify migration across the Bering strait?
• How does the development of modern day camels outside of North America falsify their initital evolution on the North American continent?

Expect this list to expand, and follow you as you start up threads in further attempts at evasion. All you have to do to make it stop is to admit you were wrong. I'd imagine theses questions are going to be chasing you for a very long time.

I know how much you were hoping we shared your prediliction for fondling gonads, but considering your unwashed nature, I think it would do better to grab you by the scruff of the neck. Answer the questions, supersport. And then, just maybe, we'll consider answering yours.

As ever, Jesse

[oxmixmudd]

The reason no-one else has answered is not likely to be that they couldn't, but more probably some combination of

1. not expecting you to understand the answer
2. not expecting you to read the answer
3. not expecting you to honestly evaluate the answer
4. not being willing to waste their time on such a pathetic dilettante
5. not having recovered from your exposition on Atlantean civilisation and Terran intumescence
6. not possessing sufficent ennui (or too much)

Roy

All of the above ...

Jim

[technomage]

So what do you mean by the ToE - you mean origins science or observable natural selection?
The two things get frequently confused with one another.

In Supe's case, he does tend to confuse the two. When I speak of the ToE, I'm referring to natural selection: if I had to categorize "origins science," I would also be including deep-time astronomy, geology, the Big Bang, and a few other things here and there.