Evolution is a Joke IX

Antibiotic resistant bacteria, new strains of bacteria, etc etc etc.

 

You have the strangest ideas about what evolution is. There are random components to evolution - mutation being the most obvious - but natural selection is not a random process. I'm not sure how this counts as a fail, but if you like to keep score this way feel free. You do seem to be backtracking quite a bit from your previous post, where you used genetic drift to "prove" that the definition I provided was incorrect. After I caught you on that one I suppose your only option is to own it. Why not just accept the scientific definition and move on? Everybody else does.

 

Ugh. I feel dirty even addressing you. And I would have thought you'd understand by my use of "simply stated" that I was dumbing down a fairly large subject to a size I thought you might be able to handle. Certainly for our purposes my definition is fine. Why you think I don't believe there is a random component, or why you feel the need to behave like a small child as you take part in what I hope will be a learning process for you, I do not know.

 

Still a bumbling child hiding in a middle-aged man's body, I see.

Which is the definition of evolution according to numerous biology and evolutionary textbooks.

Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency due to random events, yes.

Huh? The only non-random element of evolution is natural selection, every other part of the process is dominated by randomness. I'm also confused what this came from: "but evolution not be caused by random events?" Who said this? Certainly not I. I admit that there are random processes that guide evolution.

 

How would you even know? You want me to use advanced terms and you have yet to understand when I am explaining it with basic terms that everyone should be able to grasp?
The more you post, the more you contradict yourself and the more foolish you demonstrate yourself to be!
News flash, if you hear the same thing over and over again from several posters addressing you, don't you think you should investigate if you are the actual source rather than to think everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about?

Species are not always fully adapted because of historical events of migration to different environments, drastic environmental changes, extinction offsetting balance and migratory convergence with new and different predators.

Predator and prey as well as the physical environment dictate how successful a species is in survival, obviously if the survival rate is increased by adaptation there are more of them that will be reproducing, hence a drastic and exponential increase in population; this is perhaps the most idiotic argument you have ever posted, and the list is growing!!!

Apparently: they are no longer required to have perfect eyesight; no longer required to be physically fit, have a strong stature, be agile, fast or have great dexterity; actual cognitive abilities are unnecessary; and one's proficiency at jumping through hoops in order to acquire foolish tokens of worth within a ridiculous system of assessing worth, dominates how attractive a suitor is to the opposite sex.
Yes, the majority of the population has adapted very well to our own created absurdities!

I have used favor or stressor contextually numerous times as it relates to natural selection; I repeat, why do you suppose natural selection isn't random?.... It's a very simple and basic concept, there is a force that dictates that it is not random; that force is either a positive or a negative force.... It either demonstrates a force that favors a species or stresses a species...... This isn't rocket science!!!!!

I clearly stated that speciation does not occur from allelic drift, if you have trouble reading and comprehending, perhaps that is the source of disconnect!

OK, so I will admit finally to being wrong about something.... This is actually the most idiotic argument you have ever posted..... My bad!
We have very clear examples as I have already posted in ring species..... I can't recall because it's been about 28 years since I learned it (I'm 38 ), there is a salamander that has a marked divergence due to a landmark (a gorge or canyon I think, don't recall). Not going to spend the time looking it up, it's unimportant to the reality of it!
The salamander has drastic differences in it's progressive adaptation one side of this separating land mass in comparison to the other. The environment is very different, the vegetation is different, the predators are different; as a result the salamander is completely different in coloration, size and form.... Now, at the bottom of this separating land mass these two drastically different salamanders converge into a common environment and are unable to breed; they have in effect become two different species although they are still categorized belonging to the same taxonomy...... The reason we know this is because we are able to breed and hybridize each separately and successively back along it's migratory path to the existing point of divergence!
This is the undeniable proof that environment has the greatest impact in dictating how a species evolves in it's form; and yet again, proof that you are not capable of entering a beginning discussion where evolution is concerned!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I remembered something to add to my previous post about the salamander used in the example of ring species..... Along the path on one side of the divergence, this salamander evolved where it began to mimic bright coloration of a different salamander which is poisonous that inhabited the same location...... Environment has such a profound impact on the evolution of form that this salamander began to favor brightly colored patterns that began mimicking a poisonous salamander!!!!!!...... This is not a random occurrence!!!!!! This is the incredible impact a predator has on a species to push (stress) and also favor very slight color development that made the predator pause allowing for the slightest advantage which saw continuation..... THIS IS EVOLUTION!!!!!

 

That is not evolution... It's adaptation... Sorry...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5Adaptation.shtml

 

No I don’t… I have the same one as the site I always include from the University of Berkeley. They are the leading college in evolutionary biology in the United States…

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

Read… and keep reading… That is how I view evolution – nothing more – nothing less… About genetic drift, sorry, but I am right, and so is the University of Berkeley… I understand it like they do and evolution is not the change of insignificant gene sequences (hair color) over time. That is genetic drift… I suggest you do some studying on allele’s and know what they are and understand that your suggestion can never equate to evolution. Change in skin pigment or eye color isn’t evolution… and never will be…

 

Learning process?

Really?

How about this... the gene sequences that equate to what is considered evolution cannot happen within DNA. Mutation concepts that, you consider, evolution cannot and will not happen within nature. Random mutations within certain genes (or alleles) usually end devastating and thus, would not proceed to “build” up to complexity. What is the percentage of mutations that end in a good way? Or benefit a lifeform?

What percentage of mutations become, how would I say, transparent?

The argument of start codons is in fact a good one, but I have a rebuttal that not all life shares…. Something… do you know what that is?

Do you even know how they classify life on this planet?

Oh – by no means… do not “dumb it down” on my part – because I thought I was dumbing it down for you and the readers… If you want to go there, I will still be above you in knowledge, and that is why I, here on this site, have been doing this for about three years… Balls in your court…

 

OH MY!

I usually don't even pay attention to the nonsense you have going with other posters.... Just can't help but respond to this one!

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time; genetic drift is also a change in allele frequency over time..... However there is a distinct difference when it pertains to speciation.
Genetic drift occurs in population stasis/abundance displaying variances within the entire population.... Now, this is quite brilliant! You will actually see characteristics emerge that display a relative 'weakness' in this evolved form, if it proves too weak it simply throws back to the predator where they will be plucked from the 'herd' naturally, in essence controlling overpopulation. Overpopulation only occurs when we have disturbed the balance offsetting predator to prey!
Now, this is where the brilliance begins..... Showing variances within population abundance also displays relative 'strengths' pertaining to future potential ensuring that this population will be much more rounded and have much more to offer, if/when it becomes necessary to evolve/adapt in response to an environmental change. This is where the discussion of natural selection begins!

The interesting aspect to all of this is that nature's balance is a demonstration of unequivocal perfection.... Truly, if you are going to believe in divinity, the brilliance and perfection that is demonstrated in evolution is where you should start!!!!!!

 

Can you remind us again about why you think calling something an adaptation somehow nullifies it as an example of evolution? Your own source indicates that adaptations are a result of evolution.

 

By adaptation you must mean "an adaptation." The first two lines from your link:

"An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection."

Adaptations, produced by natural selection, are absolutely examples of evolution.

Check out the Wikipedia entry on adaptation

The intro to biology from talk.origins states, "A trait evolved for its current utility is an adaptation; one that evolved for another utility is an exaptation." And it's old enough that it still uses your favorite word! "Adaptation is brought about by cumulative natural selection, the repeated sifting of mutations by natural selection. Small changes, favored by selection, can be the stepping-stone to further changes. The summation of large numbers of these changes is macroevolution."

I could continue to post examples that explain that adaptations are very much part of evolution - there are hundreds of them. But now I'm assuming you understand your mistake.

Do you? I'm actually curious to see how you're going to try to wriggle out of this one considering your own link contradicts your claim.

 

Seven by tomorrow…

And you will be banned again in about three months…

Really… That is funny because the definition of the leading school in the United States says different…

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

I already know that… glad you are on board… It’s not the definition of evolution… or do you think evolution happens OUTSIDE of random events… Its just change in allele frequency because the wind blows – or it’s Tuesday?

FAIL number 2…

If Genetic Drift is a mechanism for evolution to happen and it’s caused by “random events” then evolution is caused, in part, by random events… Not to hard to figure out… Thank you (as always) for creating your own FAIL…

Good… but how is natural selection “not” random? A fire breaks out… which houses will burn? Is it determined on the wind or some predetermined “selection”? Because that is “natural selection”… because everything in nature is “random”… tell me one thing that isn’t?

 

Wow… This ought to be interesting to say the least… Well, here I go! Wish me luck!

You posted like speciation is the creation of “new” species… read your posts… All species are fully adapted to their ecosystem or they would not survive within it. If the species is “alive” its fully adapted. If there is a change in that ecosystem that they have NOT adapted to yet, then that “change” may cause them to die, or they may be smart enough or in a position where it has no effect…

Also, less than 5% of life on this planet migrates, so let’s try to stick with the majority of life shall we? Okay…

Well, it would probably seem like that since you feel that all life is in some predator and prey situation… which it isn’t so therefore, I statement stands… you HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT! An ecosystem has no influence on whether a lifeform reproduces… No human only has sex when the weather is between 73 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit and winds are at less than 7 mph… and at that – neither do plants, sea life, and bacteria and most of the world as we know…

Your post still remains retarded (at that point)…

How does that work with plant life… algae? How about bacteria? Sea slugs? The sloth? A whale? An ant? I can continue for about 10 days listing life, but I think you get the point… Your assessment is still incorrect…

Example of this nonrandom stressor please…

Then you are saying we do not have evidence in the fossil record… Wow… okay… There is no evidence in the fossil record! Okay!

But, I still think you have no clue what speciation is, because your statement is still incorrect!

And this is your argument that an environment “causes” evolution?

Also, did you just use “taxonomy”? Good GRAVY!!! YOU ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE DO YOU?!?!

Back to your discussion of “environments” causing evolution… I am aware of ring species, like the birds in Asia… no biggie… but, just wondering… explain to me how an ecosystem causes random DNA replication errors… (this ought to be interesting).

Also, did you just use the word “taxonomy”?!?!?! When you are discussing evolution? Really?... You have just demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, you have absolutely no clue what the **** you are talking about…

Someone want to help this poster out and explain why I say that? Anyone…? Grasping – if you do – I’ll give you a free pass… for a day…

 

IT ISN'T!!!!

So, what caused this the DNA "knew" what it was doing? It decided when it was splitting that "Hey... Instead of being plain old green we should split and be yellow so we look poisonous! Hey stop codon! PASS IT ON!!!" And so it happened... The salamandar became yello!

THAT IS THE MOST RETARDED THING IN THIS THREAD!!!

If you want me to take you - wait... post back and play nice - you better explain how!!! How this is NOT RANDOM!!! USING BIOLOGY TERMS!!!

 

BURZ – THANK GOD!!! I can’t believe I am admitting this, but I actually missed… well… You know what I’m sayin’…

Well, here comes the problem Burz…. People don’t look at evolution as we biologist do (I do think you’re studied). We know have have seen adaptation, and that is looked at as evolution on a small scale. That is adaptation – this is when we have mutations within a allele or some other portion of a gene sequence that causes the life to change, some changes are bad, some are good… it’s random…

Those small adaptations that “fit” evolution (natural selection) are considered “micro”-evolution. But, still that is evolution. I have no problems with that whatsoever. That has passed the scientific method…

 

I just posted this in my response to Burz… If I was Superman – he would be my Lex Luther. He is my arch nemesis, but respected!

Adaptation is evolution… It’s “micro”-evolution. I already know this. Did you even look at the site I gave? EVERYTHING IN IT IS EXACTLY HOW I BELIEVE… EVERYTHING!!!!

That includes the definition of adaptation and microevolution. Also, we try to stay away from places like “TalkOrigins” and places fueled by the Creationist vs Darwinist debates…

 

And the idiocy continues!!!!
All of nature is predisposed!!!
There are regions that are prone to drought, flood, fire, geological disturbances, extreme heat, extreme cold, wind, tornados, hurricanes..... None of these are random as it pertains to predisposition according to region..... All of these form and mold the environment which in turn dictates what type of life can exist there!!!!

Now, predator and prey is not random..... They have both evolved parallel to survive within a balance; the predator does not take down the strongest in a herd, it picks off the weakest, which promotes only the strongest characteristics in order to elude such an attack into the gene pool.
Obviously if the prey population begins to dwindle, only the strongest and most elusive will remain; in the harsh reality of nature, the predator will struggle to survive having enough food source. It's a brilliant ebb and flow between the two that keeps each at the optimal strength within this balance.

Camouflage.... If a species can blend into it's environment where it is undetected by the predator, it eludes attack.... The many variances in the development of coloration within a population begin to separate those that are favored and more adapted to survive.... That coloration begins to see dominance in it's propagation within the gene pool!
Each of these examples is specifically SELECTED by anything but randomness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That must have been an online course you took!
WOW!

 

This is the most basic knowledge necessary in even beginning to understand evolution!!!!
UNBELIEVABLE!
What does the word selection mean to you?
What dictates how that selection is made?

Now, what does natural selection mean?

 

Incorrect… Only one I will give you is extreme cold and that’s it… Because not much lives at the north pole… all the rest is nonsense… and all of them are random…

Also, incorrect… I will play your game though.. We will talk about herds – so what if there isn’t any weak ones? Do the predators starve? Or if there is a pride of about 15 lions and the weak one won’t feed the pride – do they starve?

Also, you need to watch some nature shows of lions taking down elephants, water buffalo… crocs taking on zebras and wildebeests… They don’t just let prey “stroll by” until the weak one comes along… That’s retarded… Spiders let loose the strong insects to only eat the weak ones…

ALSO, in a group of beasts (animals because that is your box that you can’t think out of) a herd we’ll say, after about 5 generations ALL the herd would be the strongest since only the strongest male gets the girls right? So, where do these “weak” ones come from? Are there nerd beasts that sneak into the night and mate with the female beasts while they sleep?

See, how ridiculous your claim is? Because it is…. The strongest shall survive is like so 1920’s… Please get educated to AT LEAST the 1990’s… “stessors”… “propagation”… Ummm – yea… OH! And now we have “Taxonomy”…

Obviously if the prey population begins to dwindle, only the strongest and most elusive will remain; in the harsh reality of nature, the predator will struggle to survive having enough food source. It's a brilliant ebb and flow between the two that keeps each at the optimal strength within this balance.

That was not what I asked or was talking about… and that isn’t natural selection. I have no idea what you are getting at… Do you? How is it NOT RANDOM!!! You just posted “because I say so…”

You are almost on ignore… I want to hold “intelligent” conversations… not gibberish with someone who is bored and says things like propagation and stressors and a gem like taxonomy…

 

I'll post my post this again since you didn't get it...

USING BIOLOGY TERMS HOW DOES A SALAMANDAR CHANGE FLIPPIN COLORS AND IT NOT BE RANDOM!!!!?!?!

Did you get it? No? I will post it ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU...

USING BIOLOGY TERMS HOW DOES A SALAMANDAR CHANGE FLIPPIN COLORS AND IT NOT BE RANDOM!!!!?!?!

USING BIOLOGY TERMS HOW DOES A SALAMANDAR CHANGE FLIPPIN COLORS AND IT NOT BE RANDOM!!!!?!?!

Got it? You sure? I can post it again and have it be in all bold if you want…

 

Why do you suppose every species of Panthera has a form where the canines are the identical width of their localized prey's vertebrate?

Was it because God created it that way?

Let me explain this in a very simple way...... When this predator was attacking it's prey, it favored a variable in this predator that was able to readily immobilize it's prey..... Life in nature is incredibly difficult, in fact, it is actually more difficult on the side of the predator.
Imagine a predator trying to take down it's prey, it lunges for the neck for obvious reasons slicing through the flesh but the prey is able to kick, twist and free itself..... The predator is exhausted from the chase for the simple fact that it's easier to zig and zag, than it is to react to it!
This single moment being unsuccessful at the kill could be the difference between life and death for this predator......
Such a simple thing as a minute positioning of canines proved the difference between success and failure, until it evolved to perfectly match vertebrate length in the neck!
It's incredible, and magnificent!

 

At some point when all you have left is just a steady denial that you were wrong it becomes a little pathetic. You're about as much of a biologist as I am a canned ham. There's no point bothering with this any more - there's something wrong with you and it's unpleasant discovering after each post that you've managed to fool yourself into thinking you're not still shockingly wrong....

 

Here is a very simple concept, why do prey have a much greater population than the predator?????

Predators don't like to mate?

How many prey will feed a pride?

How many cubs can the average panthera have in it's lifespan?
2 to 6 X 2 to 3 times..... Average it out to 10.... That's an enormous rate of exponential growth, we should see a huge population if those nature shows that paint a picture of predatory success are the entire picture..... Lions taking down elephants and all!!!!!