Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Evolution in action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both), to go from a simple common ancestor to millions of species absolutely demands that there be a humongous increase in genetic complexity that then becomes manifest in phenotypes. I mean, it is obvious to anyone that an elephant, a whale and a human are more complex than a paramecium. In other words, there is indeed a progression from "inferior" to "superior" in terms of increased complexity.

    Jorge
    Apparently you're both. Increased complexity only equals "superior" in environments where the increased complexity provides a reproductive advantage. Like most Fundy Creationists you're not driven by a desire for scientific veracity but by your need to feel that you were "created" special and superior.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both)
      Where is Tiggy with his stock Jorge responses?
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
        It wasn't objectively superior for the Yersinia pestis bacillus which used humans as its host.

        Everything is relative.
        I do not think this is a good answer in terms of the scientific view. You need to do better. Some survived the Black plague, and were objectively superior in resistance to the disease. This is true over the evolutionary history of humans (homo genus). Neanderthals were obviously inferior to adaptation to the changing environment and competition with homo sapiens sapiens. What is wrong with the concept of environmental superiority of on variety, subspecies or species in this way?
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I do not think this is a good answer in terms of the scientific view. You need to do better. Some survived the Black plague, and were objectively superior in resistance to the disease. This is true over the evolutionary history of humans (homo genus). Neanderthals were obviously inferior to adaptation to the changing environment and competition with homo sapiens sapiens. What is wrong with the concept of environmental superiority of on variety, subspecies or species in this way?
          If we regard survival as the sole yardstick to measure superiority, then bacteria win easily. Natural selection works tirelessly to produce better survivors for any given environment. But every species goes extinct anyway because the environment keeps changing. Which is just another way of saying that superiority is inherently a function of environment. Change the environment, and you change the definition of superiority because you change relative survival rates.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            I do not think this is a good answer in terms of the scientific view. You need to do better. Some survived the Black plague, and were objectively superior in resistance to the disease. This is true over the evolutionary history of humans (homo genus). Neanderthals were obviously inferior to adaptation to the changing environment and competition with homo sapiens sapiens. What is wrong with the concept of environmental superiority of on variety, subspecies or species in this way?
            You misunderstood. The mutation was described as being "superior" without any references. I merely pointed out correctly that superior is a subjective term depending on who or what is being referenced. If you narrowly define the environment and you narrowly define what "superior" means in that environment then of course you can say one mutation was superior over another. But only if you make those narrow definitions.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              OK I'll wear that one. I read your original statement as other similar animals or dissimilar ones. But you're still wrong. Hibernating bears can go for up to six months with no food intake.
              I never said it's above ALL other similar animals.

              No one said humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet. That doesn't change the fact that there are environments where more intelligence doesn't equate to better survival chances. You still refuse to grasp the simple concept.
              No, sometimes it makes no difference because you have no meaningful way to use it. That doesn't mean it's not objectively better to have it than to not have it, which is what you fail to grasp.

              Edit: I guess I should expand a bit. Bigger brain =/= more intelligence. So you could say a bigger brain can be maladaptive in energy intensive environments, but that does not necessarily mean intelligence is. It's why I brought up humans as an example, because we're good at both using energy efficiently and highly intelligent.
              Last edited by Darth Executor; 02-10-2014, 02:48 PM.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                I
                No, sometimes it makes no difference because you have no meaningful way to use it. That doesn't mean it's not objectively better to have it than to not have it, which is what you fail to grasp.
                Maybe it's because you never make it clear what you mean by "objective". If I were to say that blue is an objectively superior color to red, would you just take my word for it?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by phank View Post
                  Maybe it's because you never make it clear what you mean by "objective". If I were to say that blue is an objectively superior color to red, would you just take my word for it?
                  No, because there's no current or end result we can observe. Things like survival or dominance OTOH can be observed.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    No, because there's no current or end result we can observe. Things like survival or dominance OTOH can be observed.
                    So are we saying that superior ability to survive is our unit of measurement? That's not a bad unit, since evolution uses it in important ways. But of course, that puts us right back into environmental dependence, because the ability to survive or dominate depends on the environment. Change the environment, and it changes the definition of superiority.

                    (Your example reminds me of a time I was camping, and just before sun-up I spread a whole lot of corn meal in an area about 6 feet in diameter. Soon enough, a bunch of little birds and one larger bird came along. The larger bird attempted to claim the entire area, and spent all its time racing from side to side chasing off little birds, who kept feeding wherever the larger bird wasn't. Eventually the corn meal was gone, and the big dominant bird didn't get any of it. Now, the ability to defend a food supply is probably beneficial most of the time. But in this environment, it was an inferior strategy.)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      No, sometimes it makes no difference because you have no meaningful way to use it. That doesn't mean it's not objectively better to have it than to not have it, which is what you fail to grasp.
                      If a mutation for a bigger brain and/or more intelligence makes no difference in your reproductive success then it isn't objectively better than a mutation which does increase your reproductive success.

                      "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" doesn't work in evolution as "having it" costs extra energy to maintain.

                      You're making zero sense.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        You misunderstood. The mutation was described as being "superior" without any references. I merely pointed out correctly that superior is a subjective term depending on who or what is being referenced. If you narrowly define the environment and you narrowly define what "superior" means in that environment then of course you can say one mutation was superior over another. But only if you make those narrow definitions.
                        Yes, it would be narrowly defined in any case where there is competition within a given environment.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          THAT 'evolution' (E1), as I have tirelessly stated, is SCIENCE. E1 is observable, testable, demonstrable science.

                          Now let's look at the 'Evolution' (E2) that is bait-and-switched with the above 'evolution' (E1).
                          E2 claims that "3-4 billion years ago a 'simple' common ancestor began evolutionary changes and divergence which as time went by gave rise to millions of species some of which went extinct and others that are with us today".

                          Unless a person is ignorant or dishonest (or both), to go from a simple common ancestor to millions of species absolutely demands that there be a humongous increase in genetic complexity that then becomes manifest in phenotypes. I mean, it is obvious to anyone that an elephant, a whale and a human are more complex than a paramecium. In other words, there is indeed a progression from "inferior" to "superior" in terms of increased complexity.

                          So to refer to 'Evolution' (E2) as "... not a process from "inferior" to "superior," but simply genetic variation and natural selection" is naive at best and dishonest at worst UNLESS you are referring strictly to E1.

                          Which is it?

                          Jorge
                          I thought the article was all about drawing up inferences about unobserved past events, based on observations of data which those past events happened to leave for us in the present, Jorge.

                          So your E1 is really your E2.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            If a mutation for a bigger brain and/or more intelligence makes no difference in your reproductive success then it isn't objectively better than a mutation which does increase your reproductive success.

                            "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" doesn't work in evolution as "having it" costs extra energy to maintain.

                            You're making zero sense.
                            It works perfectly fine when the particular trait is in fact useful in all but the most extreme of environments.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by phank View Post
                              So are we saying that superior ability to survive is our unit of measurement? That's not a bad unit, since evolution uses it in important ways. But of course, that puts us right back into environmental dependence, because the ability to survive or dominate depends on the environment. Change the environment, and it changes the definition of superiority.
                              You're right, we're going in circles and I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over.

                              (Your example reminds me of a time I was camping, and just before sun-up I spread a whole lot of corn meal in an area about 6 feet in diameter. Soon enough, a bunch of little birds and one larger bird came along. The larger bird attempted to claim the entire area, and spent all its time racing from side to side chasing off little birds, who kept feeding wherever the larger bird wasn't. Eventually the corn meal was gone, and the big dominant bird didn't get any of it. Now, the ability to defend a food supply is probably beneficial most of the time. But in this environment, it was an inferior strategy.)
                              If the bird had been the same size the other birds could have ganged up on it and killed it. Seems that the ability to fight off other birds was still more useful than not having it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. We were discussing whether some traits are objectively good or not. Seems to me that the big bird still benefited from the trait, even if it wasn't enough for that particular instance.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                                You're right, we're going in circles and I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over.
                                No kidding!



                                If the bird had been the same size the other birds could have ganged up on it and killed it. Seems that the ability to fight off other birds was still more useful than not having it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. We were discussing whether some traits are objectively good or not. Seems to me that the big bird still benefited from the trait, even if it wasn't enough for that particular instance.
                                Sheesh! Here I gave you an illustration of how an environmental circumstance (the distribution of the corn meal) turned the bird's size and defensive abilities against it, so that the "inferior" birds thrived while the "superior" bird starved.

                                And your answer seems to be "environment had nothing to do with it, the bigger bird STILL BENEFITED." Even though it got nothing. And the reason it starved while the "inferior" birds feasted, is because the bigger bird has "objectively good traits." Talk about just talking at a brick wall. There is a reason why birds come in all sizes, and with a wide distribution of characteristics. It's not because anything is objectively superior. It's because birds have adapted to many different environments, and each environment rewards (through breeding success) traits punished in other environments. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE SUPERIORITY. There is only environmental variation.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X