Evolution vs. Creationism

^ to be frank and honest Mike - I don't want to watch anymore videos, I'd rather read your opinions in your words.

AmbianceMan wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Now we could go back to quivering over the word "theory", I won't do that. Suffice it to say that evolution is a theory like the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity has not been proven either, it may be wrong ... but that's not keeping you from accepting that atoms can be split, and that this creates electricity for you to use in your flat, while reading this post and writing answers.     The atoms aren't split to make electricity.

Negoba wrote: Of course that video is about "Intelligent selection" so it undermines your point.   Thinking last night, my aversion to the word "natual selection" is just as flawed as Mikes' aversion to religion. I am thinking of a lay view of what the word means, but the real definition is quite simple, that which individuals live is selected by adaptation to environments. The process by which that works is quite complicated and involves the kind of math that interests me, but that basic ideas is still a valid term to use.

Call it "environmental selection" then, if that seems more appropriate to you.

Negoba wrote:   Evolution, however, is a dicier term. To me, it implies a directionality, to more complexity, more intelligence, etc. Since that is in fact what we see, most people assume that the theories account for the directionality.   But that is a separate question.   Since process did in fact happen, Evolution is an adequate term. But the degree of understanding you get from "Evolution through natural selection" is woefully inadequate to describe the robustness of what's going on and why skeptics get armed with arguments. I think for those of us who believe in this process, it behooves us to know both the well-worn paths and the places were the theory leaves holes.

I don't think that you understand this process, because if you did you wouldn't fight the term "natural selection" so much. And please forgive for not worrying too much about whether it "behooves" creationists.

^ please don't be offended if I don't accept your guarantee. And as for "backing off" ... this has been yet another post from you without any details. You have problems with the expression "evolution by natural selection" - please elaborate. I agree with Dawkins, Coyne and have read their books or watched their presentation. You can assume that my position matches theirs. What neither of us knows - or can't remember from all the pages - is *why* and *how* you disagree. So *please* *please* elaborate, so that I have something that deserves a detailed response.

On that page I think this paragraph qualifies best for the question that I asked here:

Negoba wrote: Natural selection is one of many factors involved in speciation, but I doubt it is even in the top 3. Not that that matters except for the fact that it is only one many people (those that even bother to believe in the concepts) know about.   I also hate the term "evolution." There are some basic reasons why things build on themselves over time, but there becomes a breaking point where too much energy is required and the system become extremely precarious to changes in environmental conditions. For example, the degree of "evolution" that pushed toward enormous animals, probably fueled by a much greater biomass than we have now, eventually overstretched itself to the point that when the system conditions changed, it collapsed, It did not rebound after the last big cataclysm, and a new course of "evolution" started.   Again, evolution implies a linearity that does not infact exist. It also has been associated with a slow steady course that doesn't exist either.

Well, my answer is really short and concise: His view contradicts the scientific consensus today, and I can't possibly take it seriously. Natural selection is *the* driving force in evolution - that's what I'm convinced of. And I don't have to waste my time backing up my position - I can defer that to biologists like Dawkins or Coyne, who have earned their merits in this field.

BTW: What I really find arrogant on Negoba's part is to badmouth my position as not up to date and totally unscientific, while his position is the one that is conflicting with the current consensus. Don't take my word for that, but Dawkins', Coyne's, PZ Myers' and that of countless other biologists.

^ I agree. I find the idea of evolution being driven by one single mechanism suspect given the evidence, though I doubt the equilibrium periods of punctuated equilibrium were that static - for example the shift from dinosaurs to mammalian dominance may have resulted from the KT event, but dinosaurs were both evolving and going extinct prior to that and it was that decline that hampered and ultimately prevented their recovery from the cataclysmic event..

Edited by Dean - December 06 2009 at 14:48

Edited by Dean - December 06 2009 at 15:11

Dean wrote: There is no conflict in the various methods, all are capable of driving evolution dependant on the relative stability of environment, population sizes, etc. and whichever one is dominant is probably determined by the stability of all those factors. For example in a stable environment of small populations genetic drift may well overshadow any advances governed by natural selection.   I don't see where either of us has said that there is no natural selection, or even implied that.

I don't see either where I said there's no other force beside natural selection at work.

But how could for example genetic drift be a driving force in evolution?

"Genetic drift is an important evolutionary process which leads to changes in allele frequencies over time. It may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variability. In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success,^[2] the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success."

As I see it - through layman eyes - genetic drift could not be a *driving* force like natural selection. It seems more like an element of chance to me. Of course elements of chance can also have great effects, but not in a guiding or driving manner.

To emphasize that, it would have been better to go "...the*driving* force..."

Just sayin.

Pretty much, but I think in the context it came off as more dismissive than inclusive.