Destroying the theory of evolution in one post

[Edwardo Piet]

Isn't the opening post just another IC claim?
Or have I misunderstood it?
Evf

[Tiberius]

Yes, that is me In that video I was talking about sexual evolution which has also never been explained but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

This is a conversation about Evolution, so "sexual Evolution" is on the table. You say it has never been explained, so please tell us how these are not "explanations":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173726.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id...&ct=result

I love it when theists claim an area of science that has "no explanation" because all you have to do is find one instance of explanation and it completely destroys their argument.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe if everyone agreed to stop having sex that humans wouldn't cease to exist in a single generation?

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the evolution of sex. Evolution only works because species reproduce.

Also you seem to not understand your own application of anthropic principles when you suggest that mutation "favours" or nature "selects"

We all know that nature doesn't select anything. Biological viability has been termed natural selection to give it an anthropic tone.

It is called "natural selection" because that is the easiest way of explaining it; there is nothing anthropic about it. Nature selects because organisms can only survive in certain environments. If a mutation allows that organism to survive better in that environment, then it is more likely to survive and pass on that mutation.

[Purple Rabbit]

Even grass has a purpose, they found that out in mid-America just before the great depression occured when they ruined the top soil and it blew away(also known as the dust bowl).

So you agree that grass is purposeless for creating dust bowls and the creatures that thrive of it.

This kind of thinking only shows that your definition of purpose is severely biased. You project 'usefulness for man' onto purpose in nature. You make an OUGHT into an IS.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Ought into an is". I like that. I think I might use it in conversation if I wish and if relevant and fitting enough
Evf

[lilphil1989]

In order for evolution to occur the living organism must be able to metabolize which includes waste management and have the capacity to reproduce/replicate.

If a living organism has the capacity to evolve it is already developed enough to render the idea of evolution being primary useless in the scheme of life.

Firstly it would be interested to know what you understand evolution to actually mean, it seems to me you are a little confused.

Consider a species of moth, which is yellow. Now let's say a tiny genetic mutation happens in a minority of the population causing them to be brown instead of yellow.
Now let's say this species of moth spends it's time primarily on tree trunks.

The yellow moths will have a much greater chance of being spotted and eaten by it's predator. Therefore, many more moths with the brown gene will be reproducing (since they haven't been eaten). So it follows that over time the popuation will tend to become more brown, until eventually yellow moths are in the minority, if they continue to exist at all.

And the species has evolved! It was a species of yellow moths and is now a species of brown moths.

Clearly the yellow moths could metabolise and had waste management and the ability to replicate. So it had what you define as the "capacity to evolve", and it did evolve (which you claim couldn't happen).

[CoxRox]

Lilphil, moths changing colour is surely not 'evolution', rather adaptation. A new species hasn't been formed. Have you a better example?

[lilphil1989]

Lilphil, moths changing colour is surely not 'evolution', rather adaptation. A new species hasn't been formed. Have you a better example?

And what is evolution but a long series of adaptions brought about by natural selection?

This is one of the major misunderstandings about evolution. It is not a huge leap from one species to another in the space of a generation. Evolution doesn't claim that one day a rather surprised homo erectus gave birth to a homo sapiens. It is a very gradual change over time brought about by what you call adaptions.

If it were possible to time travel and take a photograph of an "average" homo erectus and do this every generation until the present day, by looking at two photographs that were next to each other in our timeline, i agree that they could be called the same species. You could even do this along the timeline i.e subject 1 looks very similar to subject 2 (in terms of species), 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc up the latest photograph of a modern human.

It is only by comparing over a large timescale e.g. subject 1 to subject n (modern man) that the change can be seen

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. Micro evolution is of course part of evolution.
I've heard that often the micro and macro evolution thing confuses people. Because some people think they are separate when they aren't.
Macro evolution is basically just micro evolution over a long period of time...right?
Evf

[lilphil1989]

Yes. Micro evolution is of course part of evolution.
I've heard that often the micro and macro evolution thing confuses people. Because some people think they are separate when they aren't.
Macro evolution is basically just micro evolution over a long period of time...right?
Evf

Yeah, I just edited my post to say just that :p

[Tiberius]

Lilphil, moths changing colour is surely not 'evolution', rather adaptation. A new species hasn't been formed. Have you a better example?

Evolution is gradual changes over time. Adaptation is the word used for the mutations that change the organism, So if anything, Evolution is the adaptation of organisms to suit their environment, but whilst adaptation focuses on one change (generally), Evolution looks at all of them.