Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolutionary Theory - is it real science? or a false religion? « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 10 11 12

Booker

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8294
Offline
#165 : July 09, 2011, 08:47:07 PM

when all u fat cats are done patting each other on the back - try to open your bhrain up a little to comprehend what my posts explain. o then again nevermind...

It is written - I publicly praise you Father because from the wise you have hidden this but revealed it to babes.

And you folks aren't really that wise even...

You're posts don't explain a thing seeing as you just post crappy youtube videos. You are the guy yelling and pouting that evolution isn't real and we are the ones who don't open our minds. Yeahhh.....

OneTruth

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1929
Offline
#166 : July 10, 2011, 08:08:17 AM

i dont think they are that crappy at all....

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#167 : July 10, 2011, 08:10:35 AM

i dont think they are that crappy at all....

That's because they say what you want to hear, so you don't take the time to question the accuracy of their statements.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#168 : July 10, 2011, 06:44:31 PM

Now, back to the discussion of the science of Evolution.
-there are 3 known and verified mechanisms for specie change- Natural Selection (Darwinian Evolution), Intelligent Design (which includes human intervention via selective breeding and genetic engineering), and extinction. That does NOT mean these are the ONLY 3, just that these are the 3 that have a preponderance of evidence supporting them.

Going to have to disagree with you here. Darwin himself presented sexual selection shortly after natural selection. The two combined are called "classical fitness," which has basically been replaced by "inclusive fitness."

Okay, I always thought that sexual selection was part of natural selection but I see how there is a difference. A pea**CENSORED**s tail doesn't help avoid predators or get food but it sure does impress the ladies.



And extinction doesn't lead to evolution, it just leads to dead.

Reread. I said there are 3 (known and verified) mechanisms for species change. Extinction is certainly a form of change. 3 forms of change, Natural Evolution, Human Design (for Dalbuc, instead of ID, can we use HD to bundle Genetic Engineering and Selective breeding in one category and keep the creationist stuff out?) and Extinction.

Also, extinction of one species or group of specie could certainly influence (I won't say "lead to") the evolution of another by opening up environmental niches and changing predator threats. For example mammals became much more diverse after predatory dinos disappeared.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#169 : July 10, 2011, 06:49:53 PM

i dont think they are that crappy at all....


Ed Wood thought that about his movies too.

I am quite sure none of those videos is up for any Oscar consideration.

Poor production values+lack of references+zero supporting evidence+false presumption+logical fallacies+erroneous conclusions= Crappy Videos


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#170 : July 10, 2011, 08:54:52 PM


Okay, I always thought that sexual selection was part of natural selection but I see how there is a difference. A pea**CENSORED**s tail doesn't help avoid predators or get food but it sure does impress the ladies.


It is there is no distinction. All any adaptation does is allow more of your genes into the next generation rather that is because you outran the slower rabbits or because you've got a purty mouth the effect is the same. Nothing matters in evolutionary terms until you reproduce.   All natural selection is sexual selection.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
#171 : July 10, 2011, 09:01:59 PM


Natural selection and sexual selection are not the same at all. I can see by Galt's pea**CENSORED** reference that he looked it up. It was the pea**CENSORED** that led Darwin to develop the theory of sexual selection. The long tail is a disadvantage in the rules of natural selection, but necessary for sexual selection.

: July 10, 2011, 09:03:52 PM Illuminator

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#172 : July 11, 2011, 08:08:47 AM


Natural selection and sexual selection are not the same at all. I can see by Galt's pea**CENSORED** reference that he looked it up. It was the pea**CENSORED** that led Darwin to develop the theory of sexual selection. The long tail is a disadvantage in the rules of natural selection, but necessary for sexual selection.

Actually they are the same thing. The peabird's (filter safe now!) tail isn't merely ornamentation. It is an indicator of overall fitness much like ram's horns - animals that can develop "worthless" traits or perform not critical things like dances or songs are healthy, well fed and strong. All of those are fitness traits despirable to females - plus thing like horns and tails can be used to confuse predators as well and the peabird's tail in particular Darwin didn't see the latter use for.. While Darwin didn't understand how the peabird's plumage was part of natural selection modern science has a much better understanding of the intertwined nature of sexual and natural selection to the point where there isn't any real recognized difference.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#173 : July 11, 2011, 07:40:18 PM


Natural selection and sexual selection are not the same at all. I can see by Galt's pea**CENSORED** reference that he looked it up. It was the pea**CENSORED** that led Darwin to develop the theory of sexual selection. The long tail is a disadvantage in the rules of natural selection, but necessary for sexual selection.

Actually they are the same thing. The peabird's (filter safe now!) tail isn't merely ornamentation. It is an indicator of overall fitness much like ram's horns - animals that can develop "worthless" traits or perform not critical things like dances or songs are healthy, well fed and strong. All of those are fitness traits despirable to females - plus thing like horns and tails can be used to confuse predators as well and the peabird's tail in particular Darwin didn't see the latter use for.. While Darwin didn't understand how the peabird's plumage was part of natural selection modern science has a much better understanding of the intertwined nature of sexual and natural selection to the point where there isn't any real recognized difference.

Most of the discussions I have heard or read by scientists, seemed to refer to as "the sexual aspect of selection". It was more of a sliding scale type thing where this feature was "more for sexual attraction" while that feature was "more for defense than sexual attraction". I don't recall that many recent use of sexual selection as a completely distinct mechanism. Even that seal (Hooded Seal) that can blow out its nose like a balloon, is believed to do so 1) to attract a mate 2) to demonstrate its lung capacity which is important for a marine mammal.

Since Natural selection is based on passing on traits to the next generation, I'd have to think that Sexual selection is more of a subset of natural selection than a separate mechanism.

Page: 1 ... 10 11 12
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Evolutionary Theory - is it real science? or a false religion? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools