Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So NS acts upon the species or is it an act of the species?

Neither. It is a description of what happens to the species when individuals in that species
reproduce.

There is no conscious 'selection' taking place, so there is no species-wide act (either by it or
upon it). Perhaps 'selection' is a poor word (although I am not bothered by it).

Let's try to make a clear example.

Some sort of proto-bunny gives birth to five young. Some young are fast, some young are slow
on account of the length of their femur ('height,' so to speak). This femur length is not the result
of environmental pressures (say, diet) because all five young have the same environment,
but product of genetic variation (just like we see in humans, with the tall and short varieties).
The slow bunny young are more likely to get eaten before they reproduce than the fast bunny
young; and slow bunny young are less likely to reproduce as many times (seasonally) than
fast bunny young, for the obvious reasons.

Consequently, there will be fewer short-femured bunny young offspring than long-femured ones
in the next generation of young. With each successive generation, the short-femured line
will produce fewer and fewer, and thus that line will be less and less influential, whereas the
long-femured line have the opposite characteristic.

So, I suppose scientists are personifying (Mother) Nature when they say that She is selecting
for the stronger, more fit young, but no conscious 'selection' as such is really taking place.
It's merely the result of diminishing returns -- the strong are more likely to reproduce at all
and will likely reproduce more often and vice versa. This, ultimately, will sculpt the characteristics
of that particular species. There is no 'act of' or 'act upon' taking place.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================
Look at the following two sentences:

[b] Charles Darwin was a scientific god.

Charles Darwin was a scientific dog.


Though the two sentences are about 90% the same the small difference means a tremendous lot. Here dog and god are just about opposites.

So with DNA similarity a slight difference in the mess ...[text shortened]... on the alledged evolutionary tree we have to place recipients of these small differences.[/b]

Your analogy shows how 1 small change can have a large effect. Just imagine what would happen if there were many small changes!

Despite it being your analogy, the below seems to go beyond your comprehension.

1 mutation = change
Many mutations = speciation

Originally posted by jaywill
Snowinscotland,

[b]==================================
The beauty of the natural simplicity of something like natural selection does not preclude God, yet you seem to think it poses a threat to him?
======================================

I do not disagree with an elegance or asthetic beauty to the idea of random mutations leading to a natu ...[text shortened]... ter local food sources, etc.

Asthetic beauty aside for the moment - which is more probable?[/b]

You still don't seem to grasp how fast this works.

Each and every generation, by definition, lives, reproduces and dies.

That means that each and every generation, the genetic pool changes irrevocably. No matter the cause, and despite the cause being what we are interested in for the most part, the wheel of life goes on, changing what and who we are with each and every generation. It is so simple, so powerful, and yet seems for some to be something scary. Is it because we are seeking something firm, solid, permanent, unchanging (are you starting to see the comfortable language of the scriptures here?).

Originally posted by jaywill
For your mechanism to work you have to figure that some environment remain pretty much the same for a long long time - millions upon millions of years. Even one million years is enough to alter weather patterns, dry up marshes, lay down lakes, melt ice, alter local food sources, etc.

Why do you say that? Certainly some environments do remain relatively the same, although their locations may change, but it is not a requirement for the mechanism.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
You still don't seem to grasp how fast this works.

Each and every generation, by definition, lives, reproduces and dies.

That means that each and every generation, the genetic pool changes irrevocably. No matter the cause, and despite the cause being what we are interested in for the most part, the wheel of life goes on, changing what and who we ...[text shortened]... rmanent, unchanging (are you starting to see the comfortable language of the scriptures here?).

====================================
It is so simple, so powerful, and yet seems for some to be something scary. Is it because we are seeking something firm, solid, permanent, unchanging (are you starting to see the comfortable language of the scriptures here?).
===================================


I don't find anything "scary" about macro-evolution.

You may say it is "simple" but the devil is in the details (no pun intended). It is as "simple" as me imagining that the winds sweeping over a mountain for millions of years could produce four human faces - i.e. Mt. Rushmore.

What may be a little unnerving is that someone would come along and say "Oh those four faces ? That's just an appearance of design. Its a kind of illusion you are having. Really there is no design there." I'm scared for their sake not mine.

Macro evolution may be a powerful idea. That doesn't bother me.

Now Intelligent Design is also awesome but leaves us with plenty, plenty, more happy years of trying to figure out how things work.

And Intelligent Design still leaves many many questions unanswered and a scientist should not be afraid that ID will leave them bored with no more research to do.

Are you afraid that if ID is the answer you'll have no more mysteries of life to explore and research? IDers certainly don't have that concern.

Originally posted by timebombted
Your analogy shows how 1 small change can have a large effect. Just imagine what would happen if there were many small changes!

Despite it being your analogy, the below seems to go beyond your comprehension.

1 mutation = change
Many mutations = speciation

================================
Your analogy shows how 1 small change can have a large effect. Just imagine what would happen if there were many small changes!

Despite it being your analogy, the below seems to go beyond your comprehension.

1 mutation = change
Many mutations = speciation
=================================

I understand. Still have some skepticism because overwhelmingly most of the mutations are not benefitial.

Those that are benefitial are less frequent. Is there enough time for the minority of useful mutations among the majority of harmful ones, to do the job of causing a new species to emerge ?

Optimism would have it so. But is time on the side of the far fewer useful mutations.

Does the rate of speciation overtake the rate of extinction?

I don't know about the past but today it seems that the rate at which old species are becomming extinct is far swifter than the rate at which new species are arriving.

There's a long "Endangered Species" list. How does it compare with the "New Species Just Arrived" list ?

Is there a measureable way you can know in the distant past how these two rates compared?

Originally posted by jaywill
What may be a little unnerving is that someone would come along and say "Oh those four faces ? That's just an [b]appearance of design. Its a kind of illusion you are having. Really there is no design there." I'm scared for their sake not mine.[/b]

So you are claiming that God designed this:

http://googlesightseeing.com/2008/03/10/half-naked-woman-crop-circle/

as admitting the possibility that it was accidental might indicate insanity on your part.


My complaint about ID is not the concept that life might be designed, but the claim by a certain group of people in the US that they can deduce that life was designed by certain properties of life including via concepts such as irreducible complexity.
It was shown in a court of law that they were basically a bunch of liars who wanted to push a religious agenda and were willing to make up any nonsense to try to support their agenda.
I hope you don't consider yourself part of that group. If you don't, you should consider avoiding the term ID as it has negative connotations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are claiming that God designed this:

http://googlesightseeing.com/2008/03/10/half-naked-woman-crop-circle/

as admitting the possibility that it was accidental might indicate insanity on your part.


My complaint about ID is not the concept that life might be designed, but the claim by a certain group of people in the US that they can deduc group. If you don't, you should consider avoiding the term ID as it has negative connotations.

================================

My complaint about ID is not the concept that life might be designed, but the claim by a certain group of people in the US that they can deduce that life was designed by certain properties of life including via concepts such as irreducible complexity.
It was shown in a court of law that they were basically a bunch of liars who wanted to push a religious agenda and were willing to make up any nonsense to try to support their agenda.
I hope you don't consider yourself part of that group. If you don't, you should consider avoiding the term ID as it has negative connotations.
==================================

I think scientists on both sides of the debate have a hard time being neutral.

Some atheists get on my nerves. They can be very smug, "more rational than thou" types thinking only ignorant and uneducated people could believe in God.

However, if macro-evolution is true it is true whether some athiests get on my nerves or don't. Their annoying attitude does not make Darwinian macro-evolution not true.

Your criticism here is basically that some Intelligent Design advocates are religiously motivated. So what? Does that make Intelligent Design false?

Does the religious motivation of some athiestic Darwinists make macro evolution false?

The truth does not lie in the motivation of the scientist. And just as I can find some presentations of Macro-evolution which I would not find annoying and smug so, if you looked around, you could probably find some presentations of ID which did not come off as religiously motivated.

Why do you think IDers motivations are automatically biased but Darwinist's motivations are not?

An athiest's world view is far from neutral. There are things that he wants to believe and things that he doesn't want to believe.

Was Captain Ahab neutral about Mody Dick? He would spend his last breath on that Monster to kill it for mortally insulting him - chopping of his leg.

So some athiests also are like Ahab hunting down the idea of a God till their last dying day. And if Evolution is a handy harpoon in order to accomplish that they'll use it.


Anyway, truth is truth regardless of the motivation of the scientist.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Neither. It is a description of what happens to the species when individuals in that species
reproduce.

There is no conscious 'selection' taking place, so there is no species-wide act (either by it or
upon it). Perhaps 'selection' is a poor word (although I am not bothered by it).

Let's try to make a clear example.

Some sort of proto-bunny g ...[text shortened]... t particular species. There is no 'act of' or 'act upon' taking place.

Nemesio

There is neither difference nor distinction in your response. Either NS happens to the species or it is an action of the species.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
Your analogy shows how 1 small change can have a large effect. Just imagine what would happen if there were many small changes!

Despite it being your analogy, the below seems to go beyond your comprehension.

1 mutation = change
Many mutations = speciation
=================================

I understand. ...[text shortened]... Is there a measureable way you can know in the distant past how these two rates compared?[/b]

You need to remember that species don't come from nowhere. Speciation refers to new species coming from old.
We're not starting here from scratch, rather evolution is using an existing species that has already proven viable.
So bad mutations occurring within individuals in that species will often have no effect, since they are having to go against the combined affect of all o the currently working genes. Sometimes a bad mutation kicks up a cancer or whatever and the individual dies. But we're not talking about the extinction of a species here.
A bad mutation is selected against by definition, so we're unlikely to find it throughout a species - unless the environmental conditions have changed making a previously useful gene become bad in this new environment.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
It is so simple, so powerful, and yet seems for some to be something scary. Is it because we are seeking something firm, solid, permanent, unchanging (are you starting to see the comfortable language of the scriptures here?).
===================================


I don't find anything "scary" about macro- ysteries of life to explore and research? IDers certainly don't have that concern.[/b]

No! you still don't get it do you? And please don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to help you see something I still think you cannot at the moment...

Please do not try to think too hard about this, and it will come to you. Do you remember these pictures that you have to 'look through' to see the picture? I think you are looking too hard for something and seeing ghosts in the machine...

Just take one generation, and think of what happens when the transit to the next generation has taken place, and let that rest in your mind for a while. Don't try to go beyond that for a few weeks, seriously. It will come to you, and you will start to understand, but don't try to run, yet.

again I am not trying to be funny or anything, but the questions you posit in your last few posts show that you have not grasped the concept; please don't give up though.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is neither difference nor distinction in your response. Either NS happens to the species or it is an action of the species.

...or is neither. Perhaps the concept is still beyond your grasp?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
Your analogy shows how 1 small change can have a large effect. Just imagine what would happen if there were many small changes!

Despite it being your analogy, the below seems to go beyond your comprehension.

1 mutation = change
Many mutations = speciation
=================================

I understand. ...[text shortened]... Is there a measureable way you can know in the distant past how these two rates compared?[/b]

No one said speciation was a quick process, and most people like yourself have trouble with the concept of time on this scale. You also need to remember that its not just DNA mutation which cause speciation. Behavioural and sexual selection can also cause populations to diverge, sometimes sympatrically although its often quicker allopatrically. Again this may take many generations, but it is happening, and has been shown within our lifetime.

Get over your problem with time, because all it take is time and selective pressure.

~17,000 species on the IUCN redlist, I dont believe there is a list for speciation....... although that is very difficult, because to date we have only catergorised a small % of all species on earth. This is no way debunks evolution so is a moot point. So without knowing this, no definitive comment can be made about extinction rate v speciation rate? Although there are beliefs we are in the "6th mass extinction", the previous 5 we have recovered from so I would confidently say the balance flucuates...... again over timescales you seem not to comprehend.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think scientists on both sides of the debate have a hard time being neutral.

What debate?

Some atheists get on my nerves. They can be very smug, "more rational than thou" types thinking only ignorant and uneducated people could believe in God.
I'm not like that because I come from a society where everyone except me was Christian. OK, I did know a few Hindus and Muslims, but not many.
I do think that belief in God is not rational, and I do think that a lot of the theists on this site appear to be rather uneducated, but that is far from universal and I would not judge your education based on your beliefs but rather on the way you present your arguments etc.

Your criticism here is basically that some Intelligent Design advocates are religiously motivated. So what? Does that make Intelligent Design false?
No, you missed my point. My criticism is that the Intelligent Design advocates that I have heard of in every single instance except on this forum have belonged to a group of liars who do not deserve to be listened to. I have no problem with scientists being motivated by religion or any other motivation (funding etc) as long as they do not resort to inventing results, lying, and other shady practices.
Do I think that this means that life was not designed intelligently? No. Does it mean that I think that the claims by the above mentioned group of liars should be totally ignored? Yes.
So what do you mean when you say "Intelligent Design"?
Do you mean 'life was designed by some intelligence'?
Or do you mean 'a Theory or hypothesis that it is possible to show that life was designed by some intelligence and it is the most reasonable explanation'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What debate?

[b]Some atheists get on my nerves. They can be very smug, "more rational than thou" types thinking only ignorant and uneducated people could believe in God.
I'm not like that because I come from a society where everyone except me was Christian. OK, I did know a few Hindus and Muslims, but not many.
I do think that belief in God is no that life was designed by some intelligence and it is the most reasonable explanation'?[/b]

I don't think anyone should resort to lying.

I don't think people should make the charge of someone lying lightly. Lying is deliberate misrepresentation, knowingly stating a falsehood, not just being mistaken on some facts.


I get annoyed for example when people say "Michael Behe LIED". He said something to the effect that he knew of no articles in major journals really tackling the problem of the microbiological problems of evolution.

Since then we know there have been a flood of rebuttals. I don't think he was lying. Perhaps he overlooked something.

Today I see people say Mike Behe lied. I don't listen to those people. I don't want to hear anymore from them on the subject because I don't beleive Behe deliberately put out a false statement about this.

I think this was character assasination to discredit a fine book - Darwin's Black Box.