What is Evolution? Lets define it

[leroy]

I expect an apology. I have not called you an idiot because you do not understand a basic concept of biology.

Once again, when a creature has a nervous system and is exposed to a stimulus it tends to react. I could give you all sorts of short video clips of organisms reacting to a stimulus. What good would that do? For a simple organism no "thought" is involved. It merely reacts. You are afraid to even discuss the possible reactions because you appear to understand that it would lead to the evolution of the eye.

But since both organisms have the same nervous system they would not react differently

 

[leroy]

No, you aren't. You continually reject any and all evidence that several people have been patiently offering.

Most of us understand that you must reject this evidence. If you were to accept the evidence, it would force you to reject, at least to some degree, you fundamentalist beliefs. That is something that your psyche will not allow.

The discussion is futile. However, I hope it continues. I have learned a lot of details of ToE that I was not aware of.

I am curious, exactly what evidence am I rejecting?

 

[exchemist]

No, you aren't. You continually reject any and all evidence that several people have been patiently offering.

Most of us understand that you must reject this evidence. If you were to accept the evidence, it would force you to reject, at least to some degree, you fundamentalist beliefs. That is something that your psyche will not allow.

The discussion is futile. However, I hope it continues. I have learned a lot of details of ToE that I was not aware of.

Yes indeed, so have I.

Furthermore, mirabile dictu, I have learned a lot from Leroy! Thanks to the links he has provided, I am now a lot better informed about developments in the theory over the last 30yrs or so that I had not really kept up with. I have often found this with these forums. It is often the cranks and nutters that I end up learning from - though not in the way they might hope.

 

[Polymath257]

But since both organisms have the same nervous system they would not react differently

Wrong. The nervous systems get different information because the depression changes the amount of light hitting the eyespot. That difference in information will change the reaction of the nervous system.

 

[leroy]

And I am not even claiming that the organism would run away. I gave three possible results and he seems to be afraid to discuss them. If one behavior was more successful as a survival trait than the others that behavior would be selected for.

Granted, all you have to show is that the behavior of the second organism would be different than the behavior of the first, when exposed to the same stimuli.

 

[leroy]

Wrong. The nervous systems get different information because the depression changes the amount of light hitting the eyespot. That difference in information will change the reaction of the nervous system.

Well I don’t grant that, but the statement is testable you should be capable of providing evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But since both organisms have the same nervous system they would not react differently

You are forgetting that variation is part of life. Different organisms can react differently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I don’t grant that, but the statement is testable you should be capable of providing evidence for it.

You do not realize that organisms reacting to stimuli would be evidence? You probably do not understand the concept of evidence either. Creationists cannot afford to understand the concept.

 

[leroy]

You are forgetting that variation is part of life. Different organisms can react differently.

Did the first organism react in some way, when a moving object was close?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did the first organism react in some way, when a moving object was close?

It may have moved without a depression. The problem is that it could not have a direction to its reaction.

 

[leroy]

It may have moved without a depression. The problem is that it could not have a direction to its reaction.

So the first organism moved randomly when a moving object was close, and the second organism moved towards an specific direction, (say far a away from the object) am I representing it accurately?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the first organism moved randomly when a moving object was close, and the second organism moved towards an specific direction, (say far a away from the object) am I representing it accurately?

Once again your mind appears to be wandering. First off evolution always occurs in populations. There will be varied reactions. But if every organism's eye spot is relatively flat it will not be able to detect a direction. Therefore if there is a change in stimulus there will be no direction from that change and its reactions, if there are any, would have to be in a random direction. Do you understand this?

 

[leroy]

Once again your mind appears to be wandering. First off evolution always occurs in populations. There will be varied reactions. But if every organism's eye spot is relatively flat it will not be able to detect a direction. Therefore if there is a change in stimulus there will be no direction from that change and its reactions, if there are any, would have to be in a random direction. Do you understand this?

yes I do understand


then what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then some members of our population develop a depression. Again, variation occurs in nature all of the time.

 

[leroy]

Then some members of our population develop a depression. Again, variation occurs in nature all of the time.

ok

So why is this new organism better in terms of adaptation than the first?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok

So why is this new organism better in terms of adaptation than the first?

You are jumping ahead again. Let's see what this new population will do. Now that there is a depression there is a direction that the members of the population can react to. Does that make sense?

 

[leroy]

You are jumping ahead again. Let's see what this new population will do. Now that there is a depression there is a direction that the members of the population can react to. Does that make sense?

Well that is my point of disagreement as I made it obvious in previous comments. why did the organism suddenly moved to a specific direction?

 

[Polymath257]

Well I don’t grant that, but the statement is testable you should be capable of providing evidence for it.

OK, why not? It already was able to move when the amount of light changed. The difference is that now the eyespot detects more light from one direction than the other. So, the amount the eyespot reacts is different, so the signal from the eyespot to the nervous system is different. Or, from a different perspective, given the same lighting conditions, the eyespot now sends a different signal. The nervous system reacts the same way to what the eyespot sends it. But that is now a different signal, so the behavior is now different.

Why would it not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is my point of disagreement as I made it obvious in previous comments. why did the organism suddenly moved to a specific direction?

That has been explained to you. But you run away from the explanation. That is why I am trying to take baby steps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

Evolution simply means change. How and where it is applied gives it context.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

This is essentially what we consider the theory of evolution to be. What we really have are two theories and a mechanism.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

True, but supporting natural selection goes a long way to explaining how the first two occur.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.

I agree with you on Number 1, I don't agree with you on Number 2, and your claims about Number 3 are incorrect and overblown. I'm assuming you mean only natural selection there, but since you mentioned sexual selection and genetic drift--and there are more mechanisms--I do not know if your assertion is global or you mean natural selection specifically.

These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

I'm currently reading through all the posts, but I'm game.