Is there anyone here that disputes natural selection?

[Bolo Boffin]

Poll question: Is there anyone here that disputes natural selection?

Just wondering.

Natural selection was explained by Darwin a long while back. He pointed to three incontrovertible facts which, when considered together, demonstrate that natural selection (and thus evolution of species) is a fact.

1. Individuals of a species are different from each other.

2. These differences can be transmitted to their offspring.

3. A species will eventually produce more individuals than the environment can support.

From this, if you think about it, natural selection is as much a fact as water running downhill.

Now there's much more to evolution than just natural selection, and there's an ongoing refining of the theories and hypotheses in our understanding of it. But evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

And natural selection is not random. Creationists and intelligent design proponents like to pretend the choice is between random chance and obvious design. But that's not the case. Natural selection is a principle that shows how complex systems of interaction between species and environments can fine-tune and appear to be design. Evolution is NOT random, overall. It is affected at times by random events (the odd asteroid smashing into earth, the arrival of a new predator into a new area, etc.), but natural selection is not random at all.

I was just wondering how many people here accept this and how many people here think that this is bunk.

ETA: Feel free to add your explanation one way or the other.

[Twist_U_Up]

1. This belongs in the religion forum.

[hack89]

2. Evolution vs ID is not an argument about scieince ? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

3. This belongs right where I put it.

I'm taking a sample of a related issue that would seem to be less emotionally charged around here, but relies on evidence and logic to understand.

[Ohio Joe]

4. Evolution is a fact - nt

[Bushknew]

5. Evolution is just a belief …

By the standard of the scientific method, evolution can not be replicated;
therefore; evolution is just a belief and is not scientific.

If scientists claim that a giraffe evolved from a deer or that man evolved from apes, then under the burden of the scientific method they must be able to * replicate * that evolution for it to be considered scientific; otherwise, by their own standard it is not science.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Someone please fill in these gaps and explain the logic and science of this train of thought.

Human beings (mammals) through the magic of “Father Time” time evolved from apes.

Apes evolved from what species? ? evolved from what species ? evolved from what species?

? evolved from what species? Which eventually an obviously evolved from a fish!!!

Sorry but you all have been mislead, one species does not evolve or give birth to another species. You can’t get blood from a turnip.

Throughout the timeline of recorded human history, if evolution were true, we would have seen some * real time * evidence by now. Crocodiles are pretty old and they haven’t changed one bit or given birth to another species.

In this universe, nothing creates itself.

In this universe, every creation has a creator.

[achtung_circus]

6. You and Edward Current

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvrm9E4fUGQ

I like the part about fossilized fallen-off monkey tails.

[SidDithers]

7. MRSA...

'nuff said.

Sid

[Realityhack]

11. You have a fundemental misunderstanding of the scientific method. n/t

[Bushknew]

12. Here is an excellent article that basically doubletalks itself to saying ..

we don't have to be able replicate our claims. We can keep moving the goal post, have our cake, eat it and have it be scientific too.


http://www.candleinthedark.com/validity.html

Step one: Observe some aspect of the universe, "free from bias."

free from bias, yeah right.

[vincent_vega_lives]

154. Evolution is a theory

creation and intelligent design are beliefs.

[scott75]

8. 9 out of 9 say it is fact...

Yes, this isn't the religion forum, but I had no problem with a simple poll to see how many people involved in the 9/11 debates supported creationism; so far, it would appear that none do, on either side of the divide; this is probably why I spend more time here then in the religion forums :-p.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. As you can see from Bushknew's post, he or she doesn't agree with evolution being a fact

Yet there are only "Natural selection is a fact" answers. So not all are answering, I would surmise.

Of those willing to commit here so far, all would say that natural selection is a fact.

[scott75]

10. Ok, point granted..

Still, 9 out of 10 isn't bad. Yes, yes, there may still be some silent people who don't agree here, but I think there's a whole lot more silent people who -do- agree with natural selection. So I think it's safe to say that most people discussing this issue don't believe in creationism.

However, just because someone believes in creationism doesn't mean that they can't see the lies propagated in the official story. It's like Jehova's witnesses, who realize that the trinity was just something that Constantine and the church politicos wanted at the time and yet can't see that the bible was also hammered out then and thus just as politically biased; atleast they got -some- of the story straight.

[LARED]

13. This may be splitting hairs

but accepting Natural Selection process as fact does not necessarily negate a creation process.

[Orrex]

14. Other: MIHOP

Wait a minute--am I in the wrong thread?

:shrug:

[SidDithers]

15. Yes...

No Chuck Norris and his pants of death here :evilgrin:

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

16. Forbidden Archeology ~~~I know but just open your mind and give it a try~~~

Explain the unexplainable just don't ignore it.

Java Man was predominately displayed at the Museum of Natural History New York until 1984

In short evolution tells us that we are just material machines

This material concept has led people to having very materialistic goals, focused on ever increasing production and consumstion of more and more material things.

HUMAN DEVOLUTION
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4198268959778013821&ei=f-3lSZjpFJ-Q-wGGsOGEDg&q=Human+Devolution&hl=en

start at 29:00 if you're in a hurry, I believe you'll then go back to watch the rest
Forbidden Archeology
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4411988322019676797&ei=jevlSZiuJJDQ-AGw94HSDg&q=Forbidden+Archeology&hl=en



"It must be acknowledged that Forbidden Archeology brings to attention many interesting issues that have not received much consideration from historians; and the authors' detailed examination of the early literature is certainly stimulating and raises questions of considerable interest, both historically and from the prospective of practitioners of sociology of scientific knowledge." Jo Wodak and David Oldroyd, in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26(1), 1996, p. 196.

"So has Forbidden Archeology made any contribution at all to the literature on palaeoanthropology? Our answer is a guarded 'yes', for two reasons. First, while the authors go in for overkill in terms of swamping the reader with detail . . . much of the historical material they resurrect has not been scrutinized in such detail before. Second, . . . Cremo and Thompson do raise a central problematic regarding the lack of certainty in scientific 'truth' claims." Jo Wodak and David Oldroyd, in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26(1), 1996, p. 207.





and don't think this song is about you


The missing link is still missing, is it not?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Look, Hindus can be just as stupid about creationism as Christians!

:eyes:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003309700.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Humans are billions of years old? Billions with a B?

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/newmexico/michael_a._cremo___richard_l._thompson_-_the_hidden_history_of_the_human_race__1998_.pdf

That's what Cremo believes. Cremo stretches credo.

[vincent_vega_lives]

155. Only if humans came from UFOs

Which are really, yeah you get it...Time Machines.

[seemslikeadream]

19. Mysterious Origins of Man

I think I'll take a look at this


Mysterious Origins of Man #1 - Bonus Material: Hancock & Bauval
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1567732971737810858&ei=UzTmSfKhM5Ly-gHg2PjdAQ&q=Mysterious+Origins+of+Man+Part+2+&hl=en


Mysterious Origins of Man #2 - Bonus Material: Cremo & Thompson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6319182326672572676&ei=KzXmSY33GIP--gGWwq2PAw&q=Mysterious+Origins+of+Man+Part+2+&hl=en


Mysterious Origins of Man #3 - Jurassic Art
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1286956646494999632&ei=4zHmSfyrJ6Ss-gHsrPXNAQ&q=Forbidden+Archeology&hl=en

[Bolo Boffin]

20. So we can put you down as disagreeing with natural selection? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

21. Can you tell me how old the universe is?

oh and one more thing, does man know everything there is to know about everything in the universe, our own planet, let's keep it relatively narrow

[Bolo Boffin]

22. "Current theory and observations suggest that this is between 13.5 and 14 billion years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

ETA: And you did not answer the question in the OP - agree or disagree with natural selection as a fact?

[seemslikeadream]

23. 13.5 and 14 billion years.

That's a whole lot of time, do we know everything there is to know about what went on for the last 14 billion years? Could there be something you have not learned about the universe or have you discovered the answers to all?


How long has man been around?

Could you point me to the missing link? Please

[Bolo Boffin]

24. You are still avoiding the question - do you agree that natural selection is a fact? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

27. It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun,

Well at least we've cleared that one up, it only took 359 years



http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-4137969.html

VATICAN CITY It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun, even for the Vatican.

The Roman Catholic Church has admitted to erring these past 359 years in formally condemning Galileo Galilei for entertaining scientific truths it long denounced as against-the-Scriptures heresy.

Pope John Paul II turned up Saturday for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to help set the record straight on behalf of the 17th century Italian mathematician, astronomer and physicist who was the first man to use a telescope and who is remembered as one of history's greatest scientists.

[SidDithers]

28. Ahhh, I see. To you it's only official when the Vatican says it is...nt

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

31. lol

[Bolo Boffin]

32. You're still not answering the question. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Isn't there some more limits to the existance of humans? Like the age of the Earth itself?

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10597.html


"About 4.5 billion years based on radio active dating using uranium and thorium isotopes. It could be a little bit older if it formed as a liquid mass, since this state resets nuclear isotope clocks which only date from the onset of a solid phase. The oldest meteorites are about 4.8 billion years old so that is probably the upper limit for the Earth too."

So there's about 10 billion years knocked off right there.

[seemslikeadream]

26. Then you are saying we know everything about the last 4.8 billion years?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Bolo asked you a simple question, SLAD....

Do you dispute natural selection? Your anti-science ruminations are truly embarrassing. Let's just hope you don't follow this up with your usual torrent of SLADbombs.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Nope, didn't say that. I quoted a site giving the best scientific answer for the age of the earth.

And suggesting that might be a limit on how many billions of years we can talk about human beings in existance.

Apparently, you aren't even able to grant that as the beginnings of an upper limit.

[seemslikeadream]

34. "human beings in existance" that wasn't my point

human beings knowing at this time in the history of the universe knowing everything there is to know about it. Is there anything left to discover or prove incorrect?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. You posted a link to an article from people claiming people to be billions of years old

You defend the notion a couple of times, and now you are saying "human beings in existence" isn't your point.

If that's not your point, why are you posting articles that make this point?

[seemslikeadream]

41. my position is no matter how old the human race is how could anyone know everything there is to know

about the earth, universe, whatever, it is impossible, and for someone to say they know it all (knowledge set in stone) is either crazy, stupid, insane, or delusional

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Who here has made the claim to know everything there is to know?

Nobody. You're demonstrating against something that no one has claimed. Why, I don't know.

Could you answer the simple question posed by the OP? Do you agree that natural selection is a fact?

[seemslikeadream]

44. You and your soul mates appear to me to know it all

just like the Catholic Church did many years ago

[Bolo Boffin]

45. I am asking a simple question. Why won't you answer it?

Do you accept natural selection as a fact?

Leave aside your personalizing and mind-reading and answer the question, please.

[SDuderstadt]

51. SLAD "logic"....

since we can't know everything, we can't know anything.

[seemslikeadream]

55. I have a trouble with natural selection as the primary explanation for

complexity/diversity

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Did the OP claim natural selection was the primary explanation for complexity/diversity? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

68. It's always amazing to me how...

someone can ask SLAD a specific question and she, instead, answers a question that was never asked.Unfuckingbelievable.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. And I find it interesting that given the choice

to answer my simple questions or bicker with you, SLAD chooses bickering.

What a wonderful world!

[SDuderstadt]

81. She thinks if she bickers long enough...

no one will notice she didn't answer the question. I asked her repeatedly of she is an evolution-denier. Of course, she won't go on the record. Standard operating procedure.

[SDuderstadt]

62. It isn't, SLAD...

if you'd open your mind to science, you'd know these things.

I have a simple question. Are you an evolution-denier?

[SDuderstadt]

47. Nobody fucking knows what your point is...

because your writing is so poor, SLAD. That's why you're considered an inside joke around here.

[seemslikeadream]

57. you are the personification of inside joke

[SDuderstadt]

60. If that's the case, how come it's always you...

at odds with most of the posters?

[seemslikeadream]

64. bullshit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5446102

[SDuderstadt]

66. That wasn't my claim, SLAD...

I said that you're always at odds with a large number of posters. I stand by what I said. Now, are you an evolution-denier? Yes or no?

[seemslikeadream]

70. large number of posters. NAMES PLEASE??

[SDuderstadt]

74. Your faux indignation is...

always amusing, SLAD.

[seemslikeadream]

76. Just where do you get that fake large number bullshit, can't prove it so quit blowin stuff out your.

[SDuderstadt]

78. You seem rattled, SLAD...

do you have any tranquilizers?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

84. By the looks of it....

I'd say that's someone trying to diagram one of your ponderously long, incoherent posts right before they throw their hands up in utter desperation. BTW, you STILL sound rattled. I have a suggestion. Take a deep breath and count to ten. No, wait...I'll make it easier...take a deep breath and count to five. I'm certain you can handle that.

Again, are you an evolution-denier? Yes or No?

[seemslikeadream]

87. 12,000 years ago

http://www.caminandosinrumbo.com/bolivia/tiwanaku/index.htm

[SDuderstadt]

90. Another incoherent post....

I guess we should feel lucky that you didn't try to explain it.

[achtung_circus]

92. Terminal PMS

or something.

[Lithos]

112. Not sure what your point here is

If you are trying to promote some extra-terrestrial piece, but neither the Piri Reis map, nor Tiwanaku support this.

Recent examinations have shown the Piri Reis map much better shows the coastline of S. America than that of an ice-free Antarctica. The distortion around Patagonia is easily explained by trying to fit it on the curved parchment.



And Tiwanaku is old, but definitely not 12,000 years old. Tiwanaku's culture span was from 300 BCE to 1200 AD and very well documented in archaeology.

As such is confirmed in the link you posted

"Tiwanaku fue una ciudad, es posible que fuese capital, de una civilización que surgió en el valle Pampa Koani, al sur del lago Titicaca, en la presente Bolivia. Se estima que esta ciudad ya existía cinco siglos antes de Cristo y perduró por más de 1500 años."

"Tiwanaku was a city, you may be capital of a civilization that emerged in the valley Koani Pampa, south of Lake Titicaca, in Bolivia this. It is estimated that the city already existed five centuries before Christ and lasted for over 1500 years."

[SDuderstadt]

113. Welcome to the club...

most of us have no idea what her point is most of the time...

[seemslikeadream]

143. "If you are trying to promote some extra-terrestrial piece" no I definetly was not

Around the turn of the 20th century Bolivian scholar Arthur Broznansky began a fifty year study of the ruins of Tiahuanaco. Using astronomical information, he concluded that the city was constructed more than 17,000 years ago long before any civilization was supposed to have existed. He considered Tiahuanaco to be the 'Cradle of Civilization'



http://hurri.kean.edu/~anderson/lectures/History%20of%20Env%20Mgmt/Tiahunanaco.ppt




Using the science of Astronomy he concluded that the city was constructed more than 17,000 years ago long before any civilisation was supposed to have existed. He called this city the ‘Cradle of Civilisation’. By measuring the angle of the cornerstones and comparing that angle to today’s sunrise position Broznansky was able to calculate that the city was built 17,000 years ago. Steede feels that the construction is more like 12,000 years old. The controversies about the age of its original construction are also attracting many scholars from different parts of the world. If Tiahuanacao was 17,000 thousand years old, as claimed by Bolivian scholar Arthur Broznansky, then it is likely to be the remains of the oldest civilisation of the world known so far.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

146. Ignored - must be a personal attack - oh well to be expected - life goes on

[SDuderstadt]

148. i see...

you responded to demonstrate you're ignoring the post...only in sladworld! what a hoot!

[SidDithers]

93. Holy giant image...

I'm sure ufonetwork.it appreciates you stealing their bandwidth with that monster.

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

71. QUICK LIST FOR YA SD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5446102

[SDuderstadt]

73. I wouldn't consider one of your ponderously long, incoherent posts...

to be a "quick list", SLAD.

[seemslikeadream]

75. (73 votes) who cares what you think

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

83. you're the one that brought "friends"

[SDuderstadt]

86. As usual, your post is incoherent...

I guess we can take some solace in the fact that it, at least, is not ponderously long.


Again, are you an evolution-denier? Yes or no?

[seemslikeadream]

65. I'll match my friends here with the number you've got any day

[SDuderstadt]

67. Make sure that all of them have a...

SLAD-to-English dictionary handy.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Jesus, SLAD....

Your denial of science is fucking unbelievable.

[Realityhack]

122. SLAD doges another question... badly. n/t

[greyl]

36. I presume we can put her down for "even worse". nt

[seemslikeadream]

39. I presume we can put you down for Mr. Know I. All

[HamdenRice]

117. This coming from the guy who DOES NOT believe humans evolved from apes

and thinks humans cavorted on the earth millions of years ago.

[greyl]

120. This falsehood coming from a guy who doesn't believe Neanderthals were human.

Same guy who airily lectures people on the "entomology" of words. What a trip.

greyl: "Neanderthals were human."
HamdenRice: "No they weren't human"

Why is it hard to accept that Homo sapiens(modern humans) aren't the only human species that ever existed on Earth? Some lingering Creationist affection perhaps? Why can't you accept that all members of the genus Homo are human?

Some hopefully non-vague facts for you to not misinterpret: Humans are apes. Modern humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was an ape. The genus homo goes back at least 2.5 million years. That means humans have existed for millions of years.

edit: maybe you missed this link last time I posted it for you:

Linnaean Classification

The taxonomic classification system devised by Linnaeus in 1758 is still used in modified form today. Animals are identified, in descending order, as belonging to a Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and finally a Species. This classification system is based largely on the animal's physical characteristics; things that looked alike were placed together.

In the Linnaean system, humans would be categorized first as Animalia; then Chordata because we have a backbone; Mammalia because we have hair and suckle our young; Primates because we share with apes, monkeys, and lemurs certain morphological characteristics; Hominidae because, among a few other criteria, we are separated from the other apes by being bipedal; Homo being our generic classification as human; and finally sapiens, a species name meaning, rightly or wrongly, "wise."

The Linnaean system also recognizes such groupings as superfamilies and sub-families. In the case of the human lineage, the most often recognized superfamily is the Hominoidea (hominoids), which includes all of the living apes. It is from this point onward that most of the present human origins classification debate begins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1204_hominin_id.html

Happy learning!

[HamdenRice]

121. and finally sapiens, a species name meaning, rightly or wrongly, "wise."

Which neanderthals were not. Obviously no amount of facts will ever be allowed to disrupt your carefully constructed alternate reality, even when those facts are staring you in the face.

[greyl]

128. You're arguing with figments of your own fantasy. nt

[Bushknew]

35. Natural selection, so what.

If they can, people and animals will try to mate with the healthiest, strongest, most intelligent, most talented, most productive and most attractive mate they can.

So what, this will not guarantee your offspring will be attractive , talented, intelligent, productive or healthy.

If anything, they are more people and animals that are not super healthy, attractive, productive, talented and intelligent.

So, what specifically triggers evolution?

[seemslikeadream]

37. If natural selection is the answer what pray tell explains this?

[SDuderstadt]

49. Same thing that explains...

"truthers".

[Bolo Boffin]

40. "what specifically triggers evolution"

My OP specifically lays out three undeniable facts which, when considered together, shows how "evolution is triggered."

Which of those three facts do you dispute?

[seemslikeadream]

43. 3. A species will eventually produce more individuals than the environment can support.

I think that one is not set in stone

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Give your reasons for disputing it.

And does that mean that you accept the first two as accurate?

[SDuderstadt]

48. Unfucking believable...

Your ignorance of science is simply stunning, SLAD.

[seemslikeadream]

50. You're still here

I rest my case

[SDuderstadt]

52. How do you know I am here?

After all, how can we know anything?

[seemslikeadream]

53. I don't think I should answer that

[SDuderstadt]

54. Why, SLAD?

How do you know I even asked anything? After all, how can we know anything?

[seemslikeadream]

56. I mean I don't want to get deleted

[SDuderstadt]

58. Well, quit substituting personal insults for substance...

and you won't be the Queen of deletions. I know asking you for substance is a stretch, but one can hope.

[seemslikeadream]

61. What is that awful smell?

[SDuderstadt]

63. Well, since you can smell it there, I'd say it's....

you! You set yourself up for these things, SLAD.

[Bushknew]

69. "A species will eventually produce more individuals than the environment can support."

Such as?

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Yes, I think that's self-evident.

You don't think that?

[Bushknew]

85. You can't give me an example? Again, what specifically in natural selection triggers evolution.

Again, what specifically in natural selection triggers evolution.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. What is evolution? Change in a species over time.

Natural selection is one of the triggers, one of the most important triggers.

The differences among individuals means that in different circumstances, some will be more likely to acquire the necessary scare resources than others. They will survive long enough to reproduce, on average, to a greater extent than the less fit. And over time, the more fit will crowd out the less fit.

[Bushknew]

89. According to evolution or what I call the “magic of father time” the train of thought is

that amphibians evolved from fish, reptiles evolved from amphibians, and mammals evolved from reptiles.

Unless scientists can induce evolution, I can’t believe in the “magic of father time” train of thought.

[SDuderstadt]

91. How would a scientist.,..

"induce" evolution?

[SidDithers]

94. I think you need to research the term "common ancestor"...nt

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

97. I (no kidding) had a RW born-again type ask me once...

if man descended from apes, why are there still apes? I'm not kidding.

[SidDithers]

114. I think don't think our friend here is any wiser than your RWer...

:hi:

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Evolution is observable and "induce-able" in the laboratory

All you need is a species that has high rates of generation turn-over. Fruit flies and bacteria are the usual choices.

[Bushknew]

96. So, what did Fruit flies evolve into and ...

how did scientists induce their evolution? Do you have a link of that study?

[SDuderstadt]

98. You don't remotely understand evolution or natural selection...

It's easy to tell from your questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Fruit flies have been studied since the 1930's.

There are thousands of studies out there on their ability to evolve.

[Bushknew]

101. So, what did Fruit flies evolve into and ...

how did scientists induce their evolution? Do you have a link of that study?

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Into another species of fruit fly, one that can't breed with the former species

Here's a story of an invasive species of fruit fly that is replacing indigeous species and evolve to mimic them in the environment! But they aren't the same species -- they can't breed.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/28/fruit.flies.enn/

[Bushknew]

105. That’s not evolution, that’s a stronger species killing off a weaker species.

It’s still a fruit fly, a European one.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. The evolution on display is that the species evolves to look like the previous species

because that form is what is best suited to the environment.

And over time, the invasive species won't be able to mate with its own species because of the changes. It will be a new species.

[SDuderstadt]

107. No offense, but you need to study speciation...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

79. I actually believe that "truthers" DISPROVE natural selection...

but I voted yes anyhow. I suppose the little sarcasm smoticon is not necessary.

[Bushknew]

100. The strong, the beautiful, & the intelligent are the minority in any species.

The ugly, unhealthy & unintelligent are the majority in any species.

What does that say about natural selection?

[achtung_circus]

103. It may say more about your life than about natural selection.

BTW do you have a link to THAT particular assertion? I'm sure it wasn't made up on the spur of the moment.

[AZCat]

104. That's not a very good argument.

"Strong", "beautiful" and "intelligent" are relative terms. It's like pointing out that 50% of the adult population of the United States has an IQ below 100. It doesn't support your argument, because IQ is normalized - just like our concepts of strength, beauty and intelligence.

[Bushknew]

108. "Strong", "beautiful" and "intelligent" are relative terms.

Nonetheless, it’s how a female judges the male for mating.

Does he have good plumage?
Can he build a nice nest?
Can he chirp beautifully?

The point is, a female is not going to abstain in having a mate if she can’t get the cream of the crop so to speak.

[achtung_circus]

109. The point is, a female is not going to abstain in having a mate

if she can’t get the cream of the crop

BUT

Does the plumage reflect a healthier male with spare energy to devote to display growth?
Does the better nest indicate available time from food gathering to devote to nest building?
Does the "beautiful" chirping mean that he is capable of defending his territory?

Does this result in a competitive advantage?

Yes.

Does this translate into better chick survival?

Yes.

That is how it works.

[Bushknew]

110. The female will mate with whatever *she* can attract.

that's how it works.

[achtung_circus]

111. Not so,

please do some elementary biology reading before posting this drivel. If that's too technical I can recommend Jared Diamond's "Why Is Sex Fun?" as a readable study of mate selection strategies.

[Realityhack]

125. Silly AZCat... do not confuse people with facts and definitions...

for well over 50% are dumber than you.

[Bushknew]

115. I’m going to lower the bar down to the cellular level ….

OK, forget about fire flies, I’m assuming there is no study where scientists
induce the evolution of a fire fly to become something *other * than a fire fly.

Please, no crossbreeding breeds = evidence of evolution. It's not evolution it's just a mutt fire fly.

I’m going to lower the bar down to the cellular level.

Do you have a link where scientists can induce evolution in bacteria?

Meaning, scientists induce evolution in a bacteria. That bacteria evolves into a different type of cell other than a bacteria.

[SidDithers]

116. They're fruit flies...

not fire flies. Try paying attention. Look for evolution research using drosophila.

Or this, using a type of caterpillar.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

Or, as I posted way, way upthread, read about MRSA.

Or, continue looking foolish.

Sid

[Realityhack]

124. "Or, continue looking foolish." are you taking bets? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

118. Weighing in

I definitely believe in natural selection.

But, I am cognizant of the fact that "belief" is not the same as "proof". And, let's face it.
There can't be proof -- there can only be theories (albeit based on evidence gathered). Theories are not proof.

Also, I am cognizant of the fact that as more is learned, some theories are abandoned, while others are retained and embellished.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Hope, you're confusing a colloquial meaning of "theory" for the scientific one

Natural selection isn't anything you have to "believe" in. It's a fact whether you believe it or not.

I am glad that you accept it as being true. But whether you believe it to be true or not, natural selection is as much a fact as gravity.

[seemslikeadream]

123. CYCLES

NO LINEAR EVOLUTION

[SDuderstadt]

126. Congratulations on another totally incoherent post....

You're the Queen of incoherent posts, although it should be noted that Boo Bloo Potion is not far behind. I suspect you won't be dethroned anytime soon, SLAD.

[SidDithers]

127. But, SDude, it's in ALL CAPS...

so it must be REALLY MEANINGFUL!

Sid

[greyl]

129. All 4 words were spelled correctly, though.

She must have noticed how DUers love to make fun of teabaggers who can't spell.

[seemslikeadream]

130. you never did thank me for that link greyl

[greyl]

133. After a dentist pulls teeth, the PATIENT gets the bill.

Let's not change the subject. There are a few things you haven't answered to in this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

135. She IS making progress on some fronts, however limited...

that may be. If she managed a coherent sentence occasionally (not an entire post, mind you - let's keep the bar low for npw) that would, in itself, be a major breakthrough. Of course, it would take a lot to overcome the "back peddling" fiasco.

[seemslikeadream]

132. as fuckin meaningful as your sig line there Sid

[SidDithers]

142. Sorry if my sig offends your Bible College sensibilities...nt

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

131. Thank you I wear your ramblings as a badge of honor

[greyl]

134. Do you wear your own ramblings like a ball and chain?

Take pride in how you feel and try to write something persuasive on their behalf once in a while.
Devolving into personal attacks hurts your case.

[seemslikeadream]

140. lack of faith

[SDuderstadt]

141. Brilliant stategy, SLAD...

if you're accused of incoherence, respond with more incohertence. Anf you wonder why many here regard you as an inside joke.

[SDuderstadt]

137. It's pretty stupid to contend that a three line post is...

"rambling", SLAD. Of course, we've come to expect such imprecise thinking on your part. You never let us down.

[seemslikeadream]

136. It can be tampered with

[greyl]

138. Funny picture. However, natural selection isn't some pre-ordained schedule of change.

It is subject to all manner of changes in the environment including the unintended(or intended) consequences of technological development by species. So?

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Cute! n/t

[Realityhack]

144. Several people here seem to dispute natural selection...

but can not figure out how to vote. Or lack the balls.

[seemslikeadream]

147. Does someone have the balls or lack there of to name names?

but then again it is not a personal attack when someone won't mention the couple of names that someone is obviously referring to

[SDuderstadt]

149. congratulations on another totally incoherent...

post, slad. i believe you may have set a new record this time!

[seemslikeadream]

150. Ignored - must be a personal attack - oh well to be expected - life goes on

[SDuderstadt]

151. only slad would believe that anyone really thinks...

she's ignoring a post by responding to it and announcing she's ignoring it! hysterical!

[Realityhack]

153. My irony meter took out a large portion of my desk as it exploded. n/t

[Realityhack]

152. Do you disagree that there are some people here arguing against

natural selection?

Yes or No.

No dodging etc. please. Just Yes or No.

Do you disagree that there are some people here arguing against natural selection?

[Bryan Sacks]

156. Did this thread idea come out of the JREF thread on HCP?

Fascinating thread, over there.