Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Gabfly1 · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Lucrum:

"...What a majority of scientists may believe in the matter should not be the issue if we follow the guidelines laid down in the California Science Framework Draft: Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't...

What about the evidence and how creationists reached their conclusions? Again, you keep obfuscating. There are only two parties in this "debate" (which is no longer a debate). There are evolutionists, and there are creationists who oppose evolution for no other reason than because it offends their delicate sensibilities. There is no independent third party. None. It is perhaps somewhat similar to the "debate" on climate change. There are independent and objective scientists who understand it, measure it and acknowledge it and then there is Big Oil, which pays "scientists" to obfuscate in any manner possible:

http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/

All kidding aside, Lucrum, despite our many differences, I really believed you were smarter than that. I don't know if you're just having fun with me and pulling my leg, or if you really are that stupid. Either way, I've had my fill. Thank you.

trendlover · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Gabfly1:

You are correct in principle, however, domestication falls under artificial selection. Dawkins discusses domestication in some detail in his latest book. In fact, her refers to an amazing study regarding the domestication of foxes, which are unrelated to dogs, since dogs evolved exclusively from wolves. In the study, foxes were (artificially) selected solely on "flight distance," meaning how close a person could approach the animal before it retreated. They bred only the ones that allowed human proximity. After a couple of dozen generations, the foxes started to change. They changed colors, to like those of dogs, their ears became floppy and their tails pointed upward and wagged, all very much unlike foxes and all as a result of nothing other than artificial selection on the basis of friendliness as measured by flight distance. Fascinating, eh? There are other studies, but this one really caugfht my eye.

-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can not understand why the name is "artificial" selection.
The humans select (specific) traits they see to like in the animals, then cause the animals to change in a long time. So they should call this specific selection.

Because humans are natural, not artificial.
And yes, the fox story is fascinating.

trendlover · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Max E. Pad:

And who protected them before we could?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know. But they have the mutation in their gene. So before humans protect them they are few in the world, and killed by other animals. But humans find (select) their trait they like, then protect them so they reproduce more.

Gabfly1 · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from trendlover:

-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can not understand why the name is "artificial" selection.
The humans select (specific) traits they see to like in the animals, then cause the animals to change in a long time. So they should call this specific selection. Because humans are natural, not artificial.
And yes, the fox story is fascinating.

"Artificial" because selection was guided by man for reasons other than specifically fitness for survival. Selection would have been "natural" to the extent that the species could fend for themselves and on their own. In any event, this is a distinction that Dawkins made to contrast domestication by man from selection unfettered by man. I understand your point, however, since there are examples where some species arguably "domesticate" others.

trendlover · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Gabfly1:

"Artificial" because selection was guided by man for reasons other than specifically fitness for survival. Selection would have been "natural" to the extent that the species could fend for themselves and on their own. In any event, this is a distinction that Dawkins made to contrast domestication by man from selection unfettered by man. I understand your point, however, since there are examples where some species arguably "domesticate" others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaaa, I understand now!

Gabfly1 · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Max E. Pad:

If evolution, is truly a game of survival of the fittest, and animals mutate into something which is the most beneficial to themselves, how could you explain the phenomenom of "fainting goats."

Once animals are domesticated, all bets are off, because they are bred not for survival, as is the case with natural selection, but because of some other attribute, which may or may not have unintended consequences. Consider modern day cows, which cannot fend for themselves in the wild, especially those that have been bred to produce copious amounts of milk. They weren't that way before man endeavored to domesticate them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...0-year-old-ancestor-cow-uncovered-quarry.html

Max E. · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from stu:

Or do you prefer to imagine something called God keeps making them fall over because it works in mysterious ways?

Perhaps you think it's particularly religiously clever to keep making non-clever suggestions about goats and monkeys through a bunch of hopelessly ill-informed questions.

I already said that im not religious, and i dont know whether or not a god exists, i firmly believe in evolution, but there is obvious gaping holes in evolution which can not be explained by natural selection.

Now why dont you explain to me how it became beneficial for us as humans to lose the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could?

seneca_roman · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Max E. Pad:

If evolution, is truly a game of survival of the fittest, and animals mutate into something which is the most beneficial to themselves, how could you explain the phenomenom of "fainting goats."

I mean how could it possibly benefit an animal which is being attacked, to fall over, and stiffen up, and not move, and essentially allow their enemy to consume them with no contest?

I would love for someone to explain how the evolutionary chain, and Darwinism allowed this to happen.

Pure darwinism would have eliminated animals like this a long time ago.

There is absolutely no benefit to a goat "fainting" when it is attacked, and this is where i think that there is holes in the pure "evolution, survival of the fittest" argument.

In fact this is a quality that is completely detrimental to their survival, so random mutation should have eliminated it.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/we9_CdNPuJg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They are a domestic breed.

http://www.faintinggoat.com/

Max E. · Jun 30, 2011

BTW for stu, and everyone elses sake, i fully admit i was wrong on the fainting goats. I didnt know they were domesticated.

Now please prove my stupidity as it pertains to neanderthals losing the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could.

shortie · Jun 30, 2011

Quote from Max E. Pad:

BTW for stu, and everyone elses sake, i fully admit i was wrong on the fainting goats. I didnt know they were domesticated.

Now please prove my stupidity as it pertains to neanderthals losing the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could.

weren't neanderthals domesticated by the humans? I dunno