Unbelievable!!! Mk II

[rwatts]

Define 'Natural Selection'

It's any environment in which variations (often genetic) provide a differential advantage (in, say a function) to the hosting organism relative to other organisms which also have their variations, such that the variation leads to greater reproductive success for the organism relative to the others. That is a positive selection.

A negative selection an environment where variations provide disadvantages, leading to less reproductive success.


(Darwin, in addition to natural selection, proposed that sexual selection also plays a major role in evolution.)

[jordanriver]

earlier, jordanriver posted"
"Define 'Natural Selection' "

It's any environment in which variations (often genetic) show a differential outcome (say a function) relative to each other such that one variation leads to greater reproductive success relative to another.

what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment

and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.

[rwatts]

WOW is right!!!

I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that.

Jorge

So Jorge?

Do you believe in natural selection?


Creation scientist, Dr Sarfati, who, when he was a mainstream scientist, actually co-authored an article for Nature is telling you that you WON'T go to hell for accepting the reality of natural selection.

[rwatts]

what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment

Extinction happens JR. Many creationists now accept the reality of past extinctions too.

and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.

I reckon so. It's the existence of the environment in which the variation occurs that's important here.

It would be intelligent selection if the intelligence did the selecting. But you have made no mention of that.

[jordanriver]

Extinction happens JR. Many creationists now accept the reality of past extinctions too.

I reckon so. It's the existence of the environment in which the variation occurs that's important here.

It would be intelligent selection if the intelligence did the selecting. But you have made no mention of that.

I am not sure if any intelligence needs to intercede that much,
....not if it already installed the latest mechanisms to take care of the types of problems that happen in a hostile environment.

...seems to me, if the ID was the one who stuck us in this hellish environment, the least the ID can do is provide a few tools for us to get by.


.....oh, how do we know there was extinction. How do we know the "extinct" species didn't leave any descendants, ...like birds for example , .....dinos to birds ?

[rwatts]

.....oh, how do we know there was extinction. How do we know the "extinct" species didn't leave any descendants, ...like birds for example , .....dinos to birds ?

Well we know that there have been many extinctions in the past in this sense - we note that at various times in the past, certain organisms did exist but now (to the best of our knowledge) they do not.

Sure, birds did evolve from dinosaurs, but T-Rex, as an example, existed 65,000,000 years ago, but it does not exist today. And birds were around when T. Rex was around. So birds survived the extinction event whereas T-Rex and its close kin did not.

(Naturally, there is always the remote possibility that on some unexplored plateau somwhere, a whole group of T-Rex exist which are unknown to us. But this is a very, very, very remote possibility.)

[Omniskeptical]

T-Rex is a bird, and they only thing which evolved from it was a small chicken.

[rogue06]

(Darwin, in addition to natural selection, proposed that sexual selection also plays a major role in evolution.)

I think he wrote a famous book on that concept.

[rogue06]

T-Rex is a bird, and they only thing which evolved from it was a small chicken.

Not exactly.

[klaus54]

what if there aren't enough variations to keep up with a sudden population killing environment

and there is an intelligently designed hypermutation mechanism that kicks in to cause million-fold mutation rate increases -- to increase the odds that a survivor will emerge to save the population from extinction.

would that still be "natural" selection.

Yes, that's called "extinction". That's happened in a large (mass) way several times in Earth's history.

I thought you knew all about "Darwinism"?

What gives?

K54

[Jorge]

So Jorge?

Do you believe in natural selection?


Creation scientist, Dr Sarfati, who, when he was a mainstream scientist, actually co-authored an article for Nature is telling you that you WON'T go to hell for accepting the reality of natural selection.

I will not waste more of my time re-stating what I have done so countless times before. SUMMARY: there is evolution and then there is Evolution. The former is science, the latter is part of a religion. You can figure out the rest (but you won't since that wouldn't serve your agenda).

Jorge

[jordanriver]

Well we know that there have been many extinctions in the past in this sense - we note that at various times in the past, certain organisms did exist but now (to the best of our knowledge) they do not.

Sure, birds did evolve from dinosaurs, but T-Rex, as an example, existed 65,000,000 years ago, but it does not exist today. And birds were around when T. Rex was around. So birds survived the extinction event whereas T-Rex and its close kin did not.

(Naturally, there is always the remote possibility that on some unexplored plateau somwhere, a whole group of T-Rex exist which are unknown to us. But this is a very, very, very remote possibility.)

would they have to be T-Rex.
I was under the impression that if a species left descendants of any type, then it technically never went extinct (IOW, speciation instead of extinction):

"Over geological time, a species can have one of two fates -- it can continue, and occasionally divide so as to produce other species, or it can become extinct." Colorado Univ Biology lecture notes 5: species
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.ed...opic1E_Evo.htm



And if you believe in such Deep Time, and Natural Selection-Evolution, the T-Rex or birds could one or the other be ancestral/descendant, no way of knowing which came first:

IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME Henry Gee ISBN 068485421X
p 147-148 (context cladistics diagrams)
"Such a diagram could be drawn for any pair of organisms, living or extinct. It could apply to two fossil fishes, a and b. Confronted with these two fossils, one might speculate that a (which is geologically the older of the two) is ancestral to b. Broadly, we might say that the species to which a belongs (let us call this species A) is ancestral to the species to which b belongs (let this be species B). We could never know this to be true. Why? First, because fossils are not found with their pedigrees; second, because there is at least one other alternative. That is, it is also possible that species B is ancestral to species A.
How can this be, if fossil a is older than fossil b? It is conceivable that species B could have evolved first. Species A could have evolved from a small population of B, but the main population of B continued alongside A. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is possible that fossil a could be a very early example of species A, and that fossil b is a late example of species B, younger than a. To say then, that a is ancestral to b might be wrong, but we can never prove the second scenario, either.
*that was an oldie, the last time I cited Gee's book (same pages), Sylas gave me points for actually reading it (during the old TWEB)

....oh, and BTW, where is this 'creationist resistance to extinction' business coming from??
Maybe you don't remember, (speaking of the old TWEB) , I was the one arguing against A. afarensis (Donald Johanson's "Lucy" hominids) being our ancestor, I argued that it was some species that went EXTINCT as a "side-branch", therefore not on any line leading to us.

later I may have been vindicated according to the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis which supposedly knocked off the whole Australopithecus genera from modern human ancestor consideration
....then Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovery about the time the scientists began to reconsider whether or not Orrorin tugenensis was worth keeping in the ancestor box, since it was only a few teeth and bone scraps

.....heh heh, yeah o-well whatever.

[klaus54]

Genetic lines at the species and genus level have gone extinct MANY times in geologic (not ANE Genesis) history.

Dat mean dey don't leave descendants.

However the higher level taxa usually remain, and they DO have descendants. One notable exception would be trilobites (class = Phacopida) which were totally wiped out by then end of the Paleozoic.

I guess Noah d'Ark forgot to put a mating pair in one of his aquaria.

Now, how's 'bout some geology?

K54

[rwatts]

Now, how's 'bout some geology?

K54

When it comes to creationist geology, YECs are great uniformitarian thinkers.

[Roy]

Genetic lines at the species and genus level have gone extinct MANY times in geologic (not ANE Genesis) history.

They've gone extinct many times in the ANE Genesis timeframe too. Dodo*, passenger pigeon, Pyrenean ibex, Thylacine, o-o, Steller's sea cow, quagga, moa, elephant bird, Yangtze River dolphin, bluebuck, and many others for which I might have to think awhile.

Roy

*excepting Jorge