I just thought I would go ahead and provide you (Forbes) a space where you could provide your disproof of the theory of Natural Selection. You could also use this space to prove that “primate-like fossils” are more likely to be deformed humans or defunct species than to be evolutionarily linked with humans.
Hell, I invite anyone to use this space to disprove Natural Selection.
praise jebus.
.
This looks like a carry-over from some other thread, but let’s see…
Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
This looks like a carry-over from some other thread, but let’s see…
Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[/quote]
I think you missed the point…
This is a thread for Forbes to disprove Natural Selection.
I have no idea who Forbes is 
But if you would like to define what “Natural Selection” is that would be a good start
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I have no idea who Forbes is
But if you would like to define what “Natural Selection” is that would be a good start
[/quote]
No worries… he’s a guy who said:
And “Natural Selection” is the Theory of Natural Selection as presented by Charles Darwin.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I have no idea who Forbes is
But if you would like to define what “Natural Selection” is that would be a good start
[/quote]
No worries… he’s a guy who said:
And “Natural Selection” is the Theory of Natural Selection as presented by Charles Darwin.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I have no idea who Forbes is
But if you would like to define what “Natural Selection” is that would be a good start
[/quote]
No worries… he’s a guy who said:
And “Natural Selection” is the Theory of Natural Selection as presented by Charles Darwin.[/quote]
Forbes is confusing common descent with natural selection, it appears (they are not the same thing). He also doesn’t seem up on the current state of hominid research.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I have no idea who Forbes is
But if you would like to define what “Natural Selection” is that would be a good start
[/quote]
No worries… he’s a guy who said:
And “Natural Selection” is the Theory of Natural Selection as presented by Charles Darwin.[/quote]
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[/quote]
Actually, the term “survival of the fittest” is not necessarily applicable in the case of Natural Selection. It is more of a pejorative description once affixed to the theory by detractors… unfortunately it has stuck in the minds of the public.
How does an attempt to apply Natural Selection to macro-evolution become challenged by irreducible complexity, and can you prove that the theory of irreducible complexity holds any water?
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Forbes is confusing common descent with natural selection, it appears (they are not the same thing). He also doesn’t seem up on the current state of hominid research.
[/quote]
Good point… my attempt to simplify the issue could have confused the issue.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[/quote]
Macro-evolution is kind of a slippery term. Individuals have mutations which are selected. Macro evolution, or above the species level evolution, occurs the same way - except a group speciates from another group.
Creationists often think that macroevolution is saltation, or macro-mutations. It is not.
On another note, irreducible complexity is another nebulous term. It seems to be an appeal to ignorance, at it’s base. We don’t know how something evolved, therefore it couldn’t have evolved.
Well, that might be true - but it isn’t a show stopper, since it’s not a positive position. It’s simply a gap in knowledge. I haven’t looked into these things in a few years, but as far as I know, all of the IC structures that Behe claimed were IC, have been reducible. Behe, btw, accepted common descent.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[/quote]
Actually, the term “survival of the fittest” is not necessarily applicable in the case of Natural Selection. It is more of a pejorative description once affixed to the theory by detractors… unfortunately it has stuck in the minds of the public.
How does an attempt to apply Natural Selection to macro-evolution become challenged by irreducible complexity, and can you prove that the theory of irreducible complexity holds any water?
[/quote]
You really cant, because people mistake “I dont know” for “it cannot be done”, which is kind of fallacious, to say the least.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[/quote]
Actually, the term “survival of the fittest” is not necessarily applicable in the case of Natural Selection. It is more of a pejorative description once affixed to the theory by detractors… unfortunately it has stuck in the minds of the public.
How does an attempt to apply Natural Selection to macro-evolution become challenged by irreducible complexity, and can you prove that the theory of irreducible complexity holds any water?
[/quote]
It should be noted that Darwin also put forth sexual selection as well.
Both of which are the prime movers of evolutionary change - but they aren’t the only ones (evo-devo being another and genetic drift being yet another).
Natural selection, etc, are explanations for common descent. Common descent is a fact that requires explaining (requiring a scientific theory).
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
It should be noted that Darwin also put forth sexual selection as well.
Both of which are the prime movers of evolutionary change - but they aren’t the only ones (evo-devo being another and genetic drift being yet another).
Natural selection, etc, are explanations for common descent. Common descent is a fact that requires explaining (requiring a scientific theory).[/quote]
Stick around for a while… we could use a knowledgeable voice on this topic around here.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Macro-evolution is kind of a slippery term. Individuals have mutations which are selected. Macro evolution, or above the species level evolution, occurs the same way - except a group speciates from another group.
Creationists often think that macroevolution is saltation, or macro-mutations. It is not.
[/quote]
Definitive macroevolution may not even exist. It really is quite a subjective term… used primarily to define a gap in knowledge as a possible insertion point for theories like irreducible complexity.
I need to dig around a few books… or figure out the right Google search. I remember reading about the multi-generational ecoli experiments at Michigan State and how they have documented, quite thoroughly, cases of speciation as a result of specific, unique mutations. Of course, this is in an environment where the subject is allowed to thrive without interference, but it’s still pretty compelling.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Stick around for a while… we could use a knowledgeable voice on this topic around here.
[/quote]
Mayhaps I will…
To be honest, I’m leary of these discussions. I used to engage in them all the time (even moderated a MB dedicated to it). I guess I’ve been discouraged though - people aren’t looking to discuss these things with an open mind. They are looking to prove someone wrong.
I used to argue with a geocentricist on the MB and nothing would ever get through. There was a physicist on the board who would painstakenly go through, in great detail, all the reasons why the earth was not the center of the universe. No dice. It’s not like the guy (the geocentrist) was an expert or anything remotely close to it.
It always struck me as odd, the same people have no problem going to a mechanic to get their car repaired. The mechanic is an expert and these people trust that expertise. Yet, an expert in a field of study which somehow violates a minority view of the bible is someone not to be trusted, just because the view is unpalatable.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, I happen to agree with Forbes to an extent then.
Natural Selection as a force in nature that leads to the “survival of the fittest” - yeah it exists.
Can it be shown to be a driving force behind macro-evolution? I’m yet to see that.
Any attempt at proving this runs into the irreducible complexity predicament very quickly.
[/quote]
Actually, the term “survival of the fittest” is not necessarily applicable in the case of Natural Selection. It is more of a pejorative description once affixed to the theory by detractors… unfortunately it has stuck in the minds of the public.
How does an attempt to apply Natural Selection to macro-evolution become challenged by irreducible complexity, and can you prove that the theory of irreducible complexity holds any water?
[/quote]
irreducible complexity is not a theory per se.
it’s what Darwinists run into almost immediately when attempting to describe how the mighty-and-powerful principle of natural selection applies in practice.
so back to my original question, I’ll copy-paste below for your convenience:
Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Macro-evolution is kind of a slippery term. Individuals have mutations which are selected. Macro evolution, or above the species level evolution, occurs the same way - except a group speciates from another group.
Creationists often think that macroevolution is saltation, or macro-mutations. It is not.
[/quote]
Definitive macroevolution may not even exist. It really is quite a subjective term… used primarily to define a gap in knowledge as a possible insertion point for theories like irreducible complexity.
I need to dig around a few books… or figure out the right Google search. I remember reading about the multi-generational ecoli experiments at Michigan State and how they have documented, quite thoroughly, cases of speciation as a result of specific, unique mutations. Of course, this is in an environment where the subject is allowed to thrive without interference, but it’s still pretty compelling. [/quote]
I believe I’m familiar with that research.