Sexual selection and evolution - not so random

[shunyadragon]

No the evidence is not sufficient! Current interpretations are filled with supposition and guesswork.
That’s why there exists so much disagreement among ‘experts’.

What 'ex-spurts' are you referring to? By the objective verifiable evidence 97%+ scientists support evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and a universe, solar system and earth billions of years old.There is not any evidence that Genesis represents a literal history of our physical existence.

Disagreements are normal to all science, and resolved over time through research and discoveries.

 

[Brian2]

What 'ex-spurts' are you referring to? By the objective verifiable evidence 97%+ scientists support evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and a universe, solar system and earth billions of years old.There is not any evidence that Genesis represents a literal history of our physical existence.

The Biblical account of creation is pretty close to what science has come up with (not as detailed of course and with a God at work instead of time and chance).

 

[shunyadragon]

The Biblical account of creation is pretty close to what science has come up with (not as detailed of course and with a God at work instead of time and chance).

Not even close to what science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If what you say is true you would not have 40% plus of all the adults in the USA rejecting evolution, ancient earth billions of years old, and that Noah's world flood is a real event in history.

Genesis is a discription of the history of the earth, universe, life and humanity based on ancient mythology evolved from Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugarite and Canaanite older accounts.

Probably the earliest account of our physical existence that approaches our scientific view is Lucretius, a Roman philosopher who wrote De rerum natura including the views of earlier Greek atomists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

He and his cameraman haven't been studying these birds for 5 minutes. He has studied them for many years and still he has to ask...'How do these birds come to look and behave like this, and why are they only found here'?

And, in your estimation, is everything able to be mastered and known after "many years" of study? There are a great many things that simply cannot be known, or cannot be come to that easily. For example - the amount of gold that is available on the Earth. How did it get here? Where was it before now? What other bodies in the universe was it a part of before it was part of what we now call "Earth?" Even if you studied gold FOR A LIFETIME, you still likely wouldn't even have a glimpse into the answers to those questions.

If evolution is so well informed and was provided as part of his science degree, why can't it provide his answers?....why is he ignorant of even the basics of the subjects of his chosen field of study? Doesn't it make you wonder?

Nope. I understand that sometimes a desire for knowledge ends at an impenetrable veil - and that doesn't really bother me, or hinder my ability to live. Like trying to discover the truth surrounding "God." Other people don't get it... at all... and they think they do know, or think that others should know. That behavior is something that does make me wonder.

 

[shunyadragon]

And, in your estimation, is everything able to be mastered and known after "many years" of study? There are a great many things that simply cannot be known, or cannot be come to that easily. For example - the amount of gold that is available on the Earth. How did it get here? Where was it before now? What other bodies in the universe was it a part of before it was part of what we now call "Earth?" Even if you studied gold FOR A LIFETIME, you still likely wouldn't even have a glimpse into the answers to those questions.

Nope. I understand that sometimes a desire for knowledge ends at an impenetrable veil - and that doesn't really bother me, or hinder my ability to live. Like trying to discover the truth surrounding "God." Other people don't get it... at all... and they think they do know, or think that others should know. That behavior is something that does make me wonder.

Not sure where you are going with this, but no, knowing everything is likely beyond the reach human science, but that does not negate the validity of the ever advancing knowledge of science as a desriptive of the nature of our physical existene. We get more than a glimpse of the nature of our physical existence including the origins of gold in the earth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not sure where you are going with this, but no, knowing everything is likely beyond the reach human science, but that does not negate the validity of the ever advancing knowledge of science as a desriptive of the nature of our physical existene. We get more than a glimpse of the nature of our physical existence including the origins of gold in the earth.

@Deeje was suggesting that these proponents of evolution, with all the study they have done of these birds and evolutionary principles, should by now have a firm grasp of how the diversity of these birds have come about and where they originated, what reasons they are the way they are - and she was also suggesting that if they don't have this knowledge, that that fact somehow negates evolution altogether. It is the sort of sloppy thinking that deserves no place in discourse meant to be taken seriously.

The example I gave about studying gold and still not being able to tell you where those atoms of gold were before they ended up on Earth was just to illustrate where one might hit a road-block, and an intended target for knowledge to be acquired may simply not be achievable. But yes - I get that technology and understanding is ever pushing the envelope - and that some day, perhaps someone will be able to develop a method whereby the previous locations of materials throughout the universe can be known to some degree. That was sort of beside the point - and still even makes my point in that it isn't just one person's lifetime that gets you there. It is generation after generation standing on the shoulders of the "giants" that came before them. So to hold scientists of today to some standard stating that they "MUST KNOW" all there is to know about birds if they have studied evolution for "many years" is just ludicrous.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Deeje was suggesting that these proponents of evolution, with all the study they have done of these birds and evolutionary principles, should by now have a firm grasp of how the diversity of these birds have come about and where they originated, what reasons they are the way they are - and she was also suggesting that if they don't have this knowledge, that that fact somehow negates evolution altogether. It is the sort of sloppy thinking that deserves no place in discourse meant to be taken seriously.

The example I gave about studying gold and still not being able to tell you where those atoms of gold were before they ended up on Earth was just to illustrate where one might hit a road-block, and an intended target for knowledge to be acquired may simply not be achievable. But yes - I get that technology and understanding is ever pushing the envelope - and that some day, perhaps someone will be able to develop a method whereby the previous locations of materials throughout the universe can be known to some degree. That was sort of beside the point - and still even makes my point in that it isn't just one person's lifetime that gets you there. It is generation after generation standing on the shoulders of the "giants" that came before them. So to hold scientists of today to some standard stating that they "MUST KNOW" all there is to know about birds if they have studied evolution for "many years" is just ludicrous.

OK sloppy religious agenda thinking by @Deeje is the problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Its not just my religious beliefs...its also my own sense of logic. Something that is so incredibly well designed to function as part of a fully functioning 'whole', cannot be the product of blind chance. That to me is the bigger fairy tale.

Logical fallacies, like the argument from incredulity that you use all the time (including here), aren't logic though.

There is no "my logic" and "your logic."
There is only logic.
Your claim is not logical, by definition.

Evolution has no proof that what they "believe" happened in the dim, dark past, actually did. They assume that it "must have" because they think it "might have" or "could have".....these are not scientific terms, and yet I see them so many times in the literature.

They have a "belief" and I have a "belief"....I see with my own eyes that my belief is logical and actually requires less "faith" than what science teaches as fact. Science fiction does not equate to science fact, IMV.

In order to accept that evolution is true, I have to give up all that belief in God entails.....it involves my past, (where I came from) my present (what God is doing right now in this horrible world to keep my head above water) and more importantly, my future, (what he is offering faithful ones...a solution that will last forever). There is a reason for everything and the Bible supplies all the reasons.....science gives me no reasons at all...and no future to speak of. It is devoid of everything that I need.

God offers me what science never can....and never will. To swap one for the other would be spiritual suicide......there is no way.

Thank you for so succinctly explaining why you will never be able to honestly consider the mountains of evidence supporting evolution: Your religious beliefs preclude you from doing so.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

By the objective verifiable evidence 97%+ scientists support evolution beyond any reasonable doubt

Of course! But really, what other alternatives are they permitted to accept?

‘Intelligence as a cause isn’t allowed’ or even recognized by science. (Except in the lab, lol.)
Although everything taken as a whole, screams design! From the fine-tuning of the 4 fundamental forces, to the purposeful arrangement of cell machinery, to the harmony observed within and between Earth’s cycles, to the balance seen in nature. This balance between organisms is vital, yet it is something that mindless CD evolution, with its selfish character, wouldn’t endeavor to maintain.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course! But really, what other alternatives are they permitted to accept?

Permitted is not a factor in science. The ability to make predictable and falsifiable theories and hypothesis is the standard of science.

The best I have seen is 'some say' our physical existence 'appears designed,' but that does not cut the mustard in science.

‘Intelligence as a cause isn’t allowed’ or even recognized by science. (Except in the lab, lol.)
Although everything taken as a whole, screams design! From the fine-tuning of the 4 fundamental forces, to the purposeful arrangement of cell machinery, to the harmony observed within and between Earth’s cycles, to the balance seen in nature. This balance between organisms is vital, yet it is something that mindless CD evolution, with its selfish character, wouldn’t endeavor to maintain.

Screaming not allowed as physical evidence in science.

The Discovery Institute has spent millions since they formed to come up with falsifiable hypothesis for Intelligent Design, and has failed, because there is no way to come up with a positive predictable falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrates evolution, the history of life cannot come about by natural methods without design.

Not recognized in legitimate academic scientific labs either.

 

[Deeje]

Logical fallacies, like the argument from incredulity that you use all the time (including here), aren't logic though.

It must sound gratifying when you can describe something that justifies your skepticism of the Creator's existence, "scientifically"....regardless of the fact that an Intelligent Designer is logical when you see intelligent design. I do not find the musings of science on the beginnings of life to be one bit logical or even scientifically accurate for that matter.....actually the evidence doesn't exist! Abiogenesis is almost a divorced branch of science.....evolutionists run a mile when you mention it...."nothing to do with us"....

Moreover I find that running away with the idea that all things evolved from that first lifeform, when no scientist even knows how or why it happened, is an exercise in futility.....like building a skyscraper on matchsticks. Your foundations are an illusion. If you have no proof for your first premise, then whatever you build on it, no matter how impressive you make it appear to be....it won't hold up to the smallest storm.

If the Creator shows up...your theory is dead in the water. If you can disprove the existence of the Creator, you might have something....but you can't....so your "belief" system stands in contrast to mine. You can no more prove evolution is true, than I can produce the Creator for you. We choose what appeals to us.

There is no "my logic" and "your logic."
There is only logic.
Your claim is not logical, by definition.

But calling it a "logical fallacy", means that it is. Why call it a "logical fallacy" if its not logical? Its not called an "illogical fallacy" is it? You can't even prove that it is a fallacy.

Thank you for so succinctly explaining why you will never be able to honestly consider the mountains of evidence supporting evolution: Your religious beliefs preclude you from doing so.

Oh, I can honestly consider anything....I simply cannot throw away an intelligent Creator on the say-so of flawed human theories that could all change tomorrow. You have nothing concrete....nothing that is not highly questionable...and without answers. There are loads of assertions and supposition, but no demonstrable proof. You can put your faith in that if you like....I choose not to.

I see that there are no mountains of anything but cooked "evidence", being open to whatever interpretation 'science' wants to attach to it....this is what is voluminous.....but at the end of the day, it proves absolutely nothing. Why do you think these arguments go on ad infinitum? If there was proof, the argument would disappear.....problem solved.

I believe that God will sort this all out in the days to come.....no one will then be in any doubt.

 

[ppp]

Logical fallacies, like the argument from incredulity that you use all the time (including here), aren't logic though.

It must sound gratifying when you can describe something that justifies your skepticism of the Creator's existence, "scientifically"....regardless of the fact that an Intelligent Designer is logical when you see intelligent design.

SkepticThinker's statement is referring to logic. Not science. [sigh]

 

[oldbadger]

Sexual selection – non-random evolution

Evolution theory is too often presented as a simplistic random mutation followed by natural selection where only the fittest survive conjuring the image of the strongest, best hidden, fastest, or other best characteristic for pure survival. Sexual selection as seen in birds gives a much different view. Yes, there are still mutations that at random can create new characteristics that can be exploited but the selection pressure would seem to be often in direct opposition of the image of survival of the “fittest”.

Ironically this was recognized by Darwin himself.

“I can see no good reason to doubt that female birds, by selecting, during thousands of generations, the most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect.” From the Origin of Species.

Wrong!
Evolution is all about strengths and abilities.
Some birds choose partners on the basis of 'best best looking nest' . Other birds might choose partner on the basis of 'best placed nest'.
Yet other birds might choose a partner on 'best plumage', or biggest size, or fastest runner...... etc

Its all about strengths and abilities.

That's what evolution is all about.

So......... not much in the OP to see, ....

 

[oldbadger]

Sexual selection – non-random evolution
“I can see no good reason to doubt that female birds, by selecting, during thousands of generations, the most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect.” From the Origin of Species.

Might that be true for some humans?
I can't run fast, lift weights, do the Times crossword etc
Could it have been my natural beauty and melodius voice that won me a partner?

I just asked my wife about this and received my first slap of the day.....

 

[ppp]

Wrong!
Evolution is all about strengths and abilities.
Some birds choose partners on the basis of 'best best looking nest' . Other birds might choose partner on the basis of 'best placed nest'.
Yet other birds might choose a partner on 'best plumage', or biggest size, or fastest runner...... etc

Its all about strengths and abilities.

That's what evolution is all about.

So......... not much in the OP to see, ....

Evolution is just the change of allele frequency over generations, which is determined by which individuals get to produce offspring. That can be influenced by attractors, but that is hardly the only factor, There is the matter of surviving to adulthood with sufficient resources to thrive. . And, depending on the species, being able to protect one's young for the time it takes to grow sufficiently for self-care. And, of course, mutation plays an occasional factor.

 

[oldbadger]

Evolution is just the change of allele frequency over generations, which is determined by which individuals get to produce offspring. That can be influenced by attractors, but that is hardly the only factor, There is the matter of surviving to adulthood with sufficient resources to thrive. . And, depending on the species, being able to protect one's young for the time it takes to grow sufficiently for self-care. And, of course, mutation plays an occasional factor.

Sure...... I know.
Like I wrote...... it's all about strengths and abilities.

And mutation plays constant and continuing factors, not just occasional factors. A good example is the virus..... that's on the minds of many folks just now.

 

[gnostic]

A talented artisan could and has design the whole system of adaptation of life to the environment. This system could have taken life on the journey of evolution with the input of the designer along to way to bring things to the place He had planned.

That still sounds like god-type superstitions, not a falsifiable model that can be tested.

In order, to put Intelligent Design in the same league as the theory of Evolution, the “Designer” itself, must be testable, first.

And the only way it (Designer) can be testable, is through OBSERVATIONs - what scientists called evidence. The observable evidence must be also measurable, quantifiable, verifiable/refutable.

Can you observe the Designer? No.

Can you quantify the Designer? No.

Can you measure the Designer? No.

Can you test or verify the existence of this Designer? No.

Can you perform experiment on this Designer? No.​

With all this “No” to the above questions, this make the “Designer” itself, unfalsifiable, and since the Designer is the core premise of the whole Intelligent Design belief system, It would disqualify ID, as unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated speculation.

The Intelligent Design cannot even achieve the HYPOTHESIS status, because it is unfalsifiable belief.

Intelligent Design is simply, just another form of creationism. In another word, ID creationism “pretending to be” science...and failing miserably at it.

Even Michael Behe himself admitted that there are no evidence to support Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005):

Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

A. Yes.

No “original research and data”, and it has never been “peer-reviewed”, essentially mean that ID has never been tested because it is unscientific and untestable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

SkepticThinker's statement is referring to logic. Not science. [sigh]

Yes! Thank you.

I also had to sigh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It must sound gratifying when you can describe something that justifies your skepticism of the Creator's existence, "scientifically"....regardless of the fact that an Intelligent Designer is logical when you see intelligent design. I do not find the musings of science on the beginnings of life to be one bit logical or even scientifically accurate for that matter.....actually the evidence doesn't exist! Abiogenesis is almost a divorced branch of science.....evolutionists run a mile when you mention it...."nothing to do with us"....

Moreover I find that running away with the idea that all things evolved from that first lifeform, when no scientist even knows how or why it happened, is an exercise in futility.....like building a skyscraper on matchsticks. Your foundations are an illusion. If you have no proof for your first premise, then whatever you build on it, no matter how impressive you make it appear to be....it won't hold up to the smallest storm.

If the Creator shows up...your theory is dead in the water. If you can disprove the existence of the Creator, you might have something....but you can't....so your "belief" system stands in contrast to mine. You can no more prove evolution is true, than I can produce the Creator for you. We choose what appeals to us.

Sorry, I have no idea what this has to do with my post to you.

And I've read it before, many, many times. You don't change your material up very much.

But calling it a "logical fallacy", means that it is. Why call it a "logical fallacy" if its not logical? Its not called an "illogical fallacy" is it? You can't even prove that it is a fallacy.

This is the only part that has something to do with my post.

I called your claim a logical fallacy. And it is. You tried using the argument from incredulity as if it is logical. It is not logical, hence the reason it's a well known fallacy.

And can't claim that you're only using common sense and logic and then go ahead and make a claim based on a logical fallacy. You can't build a logical argument on a fallacy.

Your claim is not logical. You can't assert that it is logical, because it clearly isn't.

Oh, I can honestly consider anything....I simply cannot throw away an intelligent Creator on the say-so of flawed human theories that could all change tomorrow. You have nothing concrete....nothing that is not highly questionable...and without answers. There are loads of assertions and supposition, but no demonstrable proof. You can put your faith in that if you like....I choose not to.

I see that there are no mountains of anything but cooked "evidence", being open to whatever interpretation 'science' wants to attach to it....this is what is voluminous.....but at the end of the day, it proves absolutely nothing. Why do you think these arguments go on ad infinitum? If there was proof, the argument would disappear.....problem solved.

I believe that God will sort this all out in the days to come.....no one will then be in any doubt.

Thank you for doubling down and making my point even more clear.

I've read all this before and responded to it multiple times.
Your material is old and stale.

 

[Deeje]

I've read all this before and responded to it multiple times.
Your material is old and stale.

And you confirm how pointless it is to keep replying with the same old arguments yourself. I can only wonder why you bother...?

Calling something a "logical" fallacy proves at least that it's "logical"....and science is far from proving that our beliefs are a "fallacy". Perhaps it's you guys who entertain your own fallacy...?

Like all proponents of macro-evolution, you cannot defend your theory with actual evidence, so no matter how much you protest, you can't smoke screen your way out of that fact by insulting those who have "beliefs", just like you do.....it's the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

Unless macro-evolution is provable, it will never be a fact. Since it will never be provable, it will never be anything more than a theory.

That's very inconvenient isn't it?