(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2014, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 07:30 PM by Chippy.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is another point that creationists (and other assorted idiots) don't seem to understand. Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance. This is why that stupid crocoduck will never happen.

No, that is false and indicates that you don't actually understand evolution.

The variation is random but the selection process is deterministic and systematic. Evolution by natural selection is not an entirely random process. Evolution due to entirely random factors is termed genetic drift. Genetic drift can only produce relatively simple--generally single allele--changes.

Sexual selection is also a non-random process but it can be subsumed under natural selection.

The idea that "[e]volution follows the laws of entropy" is false and absurd.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 06:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well, it does follow small changes rather than sudden drastic ones. Climbing Mount Improbable etc...

Yes but small changes are selected in a deterministic fashion by the environment.

Quote:Even selection is entropy however, in the sense that it is only an advantage if it makes survival easier or breeding more likely (in the case of some birds like the Peacock).

No, selection is not "entropy" it is a deterministic and systematic process.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 06:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:58 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is another point that creationists (and other assorted idiots) don't seem to understand. Evolution follows the laws of entropy, it always goes by the path of least resistance. This is why that stupid crocoduck will never happen.

No, that is false and indicates that you don't actually understand evolution.

The variation is random but the selection process is deterministic and systematic. Evolution by natural selection is not an entirely random process. Evolution due to entirely random factors is termed genetic drift. Genetic drift can only produce relatively simple--generally sisngle allele--changes.

Sexual selection is also a non-random process but it can be subsumed under natural selection.

The idea that "[e]volution follows the laws of entropy" is false and absurd.

Had you read my follow up you would see this is what I was saying. Bagboy please escort my trolley to the car please.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:07 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Had you read my follow up you would see this is what I was saying. Bagboy please escort my trolley to the car please.

Um no, you just don't understand evolution by natural selection. Phyletic gradualism does not imply that "evolution is entropy", it actually implies the opposite. Genetic drift is not evolution by natural selection.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:10 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 07:32 PM by Chas.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 06:48 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 11:01 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  No species is complete

That doesn't really mean anything in evolutionary terms. The term complete also implies a teleology, i.e. that evolution is moving towards the realisation of some plan against which an organisms' current genotype can be measured.

It means something as a response to creationists; it is a denial of a teleology.


N.B. This is post #18,000. Woot, woot! Banana_zorro Clap

Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-02-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 06:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Even selection is entropy however, in the sense that it is only an advantage if it makes survival easier or breeding more likely (in the case of some birds like the Peacock).

No, selection is not "entropy" it is a deterministic and systematic process.

Except selection only happens when there is pressure. Without an external pressure selecting the exact trait. Say the jumping ability of a mouse is 1.11% better than it's species norm but there is no hazard that favors a mouse with ups then the gene, even while being an improvement falls to entropy and does not improve the species.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:13 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 06:48 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That doesn't really mean anything in evolutionary terms. The term complete also implies a teleology, i.e. that evolution is moving towards the realisation of some plan against which an organisms' current genotype can be measured.

It means something as a response to creationists; it is a denial of a teleology.

If that is the intended meaning then complete should be in quotes, i.e. "complete".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2014 07:29 PM by Chippy.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:12 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 07:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No, selection is not "entropy" it is a deterministic and systematic process.

Except selection only happens when there is pressure. Without an external pressure selecting the exact trait. Say the jumping ability of a mouse is 1.11% better than it's species norm but there is no hazard that favors a mouse with ups then the gene, even while being an improvement falls to entropy and does not improve the species.

You are talking shit.

(1) Selection does not necessarily operate on an "eaxct trait". Human mathematical ability--for example--was not specifically selected by the environment.

(2) Your example argues against your own (false) proposition, i.e. it illustrates that traits are selected in a deterministic and systematic fashion and not in an entirely random manner.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Creationists are such retards they just don't understand evolution. Rolleyes
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 07:30 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 07:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 07:12 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Except selection only happens when there is pressure. Without an external pressure selecting the exact trait. Say the jumping ability of a mouse is 1.11% better than it's species norm but there is no hazard that favors a mouse with ups then the gene, even while being an improvement falls to entropy and does not improve the species.

You are talking shit.

(1) Selection does not necessarily operate on an "eaxct trait". Human mathematical ability--for example--was not specifically selected by the environment.

(2) Your example argues against your own (false) proposition, i.e. traits are selected in a deterministics and systematic fashion and not in an entirely random manner.

Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, which is now called selective breeding.

From the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

If a trait is neither benefit nor hindrance there is no pressure on it. So like in my example a mouse with a little better jumping ability that has no gained benefit from that is not going to pass on it's gene's any more than a regular jumping mouse. This is very simple first level stuff but then I know how much you hate any scientist that writes books meant for layman so you probably never learned all this.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: