Evolution Confusion

[Immoren]

You do understand that evolution effects populations, not individuals, right?

Individuals, not populations, pass on traits to offspring. You don't inherit your good health from your neighbor. Mutations also change an individual's DNA, not a populations (Geez, can you imagine getting cancer because the mayor did?). Individuals have traits they pass down to their offspring. Slight changes in each generation will eventually reach a point where any further change "forward" results in lower survival. Take Darwin's finches: they can evolve smaller beaks, but eventually they will reach a point where a smaller beak is not beneficial. Likewise in the opposite direction. There are limits to microevolution.

Populations evolve, not individuals. In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert.

[Sun Wukong]

You do understand that evolution effects populations, not individuals, right?

Individuals, not populations, pass on traits to offspring.

And if you pass on negative traits, your offspring typically have differential reproductive success in a bad way. Which is why detrimental traits aren't a problem for evolution in the long term.

You don't inherit your good health from your neighbor. Mutations also change an individual's DNA, not a populations (Geez, can you imagine getting cancer because the mayor did?). Individuals have traits they pass down to their offspring. Slight changes in each generation will eventually reach a point where any further change "forward" results in lower survival. Take Darwin's finches: they can evolve smaller beaks, but eventually they will reach a point where a smaller beak is not beneficial. Likewise in the opposite direction. There are limits to microevolution.

You treat this as a problem for evolution, but you've just described exactly how evolution works. It only ever moves in favorable directions. But if you change environmental conditions, what direction is favorable changes as well. So suddenly what was the maximum effective size for a beak is no longer, and beaks are now free to grow larger.

[Geilinor]

There is no cognition without the body - the dead don't think.

How would you go about proving that scientifically? What's your evidence?

Thoughts are a product of chemical reactions in the brain and the cells die without a supply of oxygen.

[Aurinsula]

Autopsy?

My claim is that the intellectual soul is incorporeal, and you are going to cut open the guy and look for corporeal signs of an incorporeal faculty and activity?

Brilliant.

What is the difference between a thing that is incorporeal and a thing that does not exist?

[Excidium Planetis]

Finches > Finches.
That's microevolution, not macroevolution.

No, it's macro-evolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

Excuse me for not having the ability to read every post in a thread in which I am now the only one arguing one side.

I posted it several times and you only HAPPENED to skip only my posts? Yeah, sure, totally.

What you choose not to believe has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Let's start with the Limpet eye, already fully formed. It has two noticible components, light sensitive cells and nerve fibers. Which evolved first?

Light sensitive cells most likely.

Without one, the other is useless.

Nope.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that is a picture of.

Surely the whole thing didn't form in one spectacular mutation, a whole new type of cell and the nerves appearing in one change?

No. Evolution isn't Pokemon.

Ever hear of a Hopeful Monster? I guess you coild call it Hopemon.

Those pictures of mammals are very beautiful. I should like to see the bones they based those on.

Use Google. Is it really that difficult?

No. I just have more important things to do than look up pictures of dead stuff.

[Geilinor]

No, it's macro-evolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

No. There are different species of finch.

[Immoren]

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that is a picture of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

[Gim]

Autopsy?

My claim is that the intellectual soul is incorporeal, and you are going to cut open the guy and look for corporeal signs of an incorporeal faculty and activity?

Brilliant.

Cognition is shown by neuronal and axonal activity in the brain; it's not entirely incorporeal.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Anyway, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

No, it isn't. Again, it's an informal fallacy.

While evidence of absence is more like "We can't find any blood on this person who is charged with murdering a person with a teaspoon. I question the validity of this charge".

The simple absense of blood doesn't function evidentially on its own. The entire syllogism looks like this:

If he just murdered this guy with a rusty spoon, there is a strong likelihood of there being blood on him.
There is no blood on him.
It is less likely (though not impossible) that he committed the murder.

You really are letting this whole thing go over your head, aren't you? For this entire thread, you have been demanding absolute, observable truths and all-consuming single facts in a world where evidence is based on multiple facets and where the absolute truths is not easily observed. Impossible to describe, too. And now, too do you ask absolute conclusive proof from a single source.

No, absence of evidence is not enough on its own to prove anything. But when combined with other pieces of evidence, it may help us get a better understanding. In the scientific world, under certain circumstances, absence of evidence is a valid method. Not in all cases, of course, and evidence to the contrary always disproves absence of evidence, but it is not a logical fallacy. This isn't even a debate, it's well-established that it's not a logical fallacy. You can maintain all you want, but science disagrees with you.

You said it yourself: It is less likely that he committed the murder. Had absence of evidence been a fallacy, it would have no impact of the likeliness of an occurrence. The fact that you accept it as a factor means you accept Absence of Evidence as a valid argument, be it not a decisive one. But there is no such thing as decisive proof.

[Excidium Planetis]

My claim is that the intellectual soul is incorporeal, and you are going to cut open the guy and look for corporeal signs of an incorporeal faculty and activity?

Brilliant.

What is the difference between a thing that is incorporeal and a thing that does not exist?

Photons are incorporeal (they are not made of matter), yet they exist.

[Sun Wukong]

No, it's macro-evolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

No.

So they're even less the same species then lions and tigers are the same species.

Which, by the way, is a fascinating case study in speciation. One in which members of each population of morphologically similar, but behaviorally distinct, such that their offspring cannot be viable in the wild. But that's a tangent.

Once again, it would be good of you to try and learn what you're talking about before criticizing it.

[Sun Wukong]

What is the difference between a thing that is incorporeal and a thing that does not exist?

Photons are incorporeal (they are not made of matter), yet they exist.

E = MC^2

Your argument is invalid.

[Mavorpen]

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

Technically, yes, in the sense that you could force reproduction between the two. In the "wild," it's not going to happen. I'm not sure what you think that changes.

What you choose not to believe has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Okay. And?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that is a picture of.

It's an image of Euglena. Photo sensitive cells, no nerve fibers. Clearly, one has use without the other.

No. I just have more important things to do than look up pictures of dead stuff.

No, you really don't if you're here.

[Sun Wukong]

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

Technically, yes, in the sense that you could force reproduction between the two. In the "wild," it's not going to happen. I'm not sure what you think that changes.

Actually many of them aren't.

It's the size that is the crucial difference. The smaller birds simply cannot carry larger offspring.

[Mavorpen]

Technically, yes, in the sense that you could force reproduction between the two. In the "wild," it's not going to happen. I'm not sure what you think that changes.

Actually many of them aren't.

It's the size that is the crucial difference. The smaller birds simply cannot carry larger offspring.

True. Thank you for the clarification.

[Aurinsula]

What is the difference between a thing that is incorporeal and a thing that does not exist?

Photons are incorporeal (they are not made of matter), yet they exist.

What are they made of, then?

[Immoren]

Photons are incorporeal (they are not made of matter), yet they exist.

E = MC^2

Your argument is invalid.

Monkey King's DJ name?

[Sun Wukong]

E = MC^2

Your argument is invalid.

Monkey King's DJ name?

You're thinking of Einstein's DJ name.

[Immoren]

Monkey King's DJ name?

You're thinking of Einstein's DJ name.

How do I know you're not Einstein?! I've never seen you two same time in same place anywhere!!

[Excidium Planetis]

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that is a picture of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

Photosynthesis is not the same as light sensitive eye cells.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

Photosynthesis is not the same as light sensitive eye cells.

Light hits a cell. Said cell reacts.

It really is a light sensitive cell. Because it is sensitive. To light.

If you make the reaction slightly different, you can use it to send a signal through a nerve.

[Sun Wukong]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

Photosynthesis is not the same as light sensitive eye cells.

Umm... it really is. But that's not what he was suggesting.

Euglena move towards light. You can't do that if you're not light sensitive.

And, once again, all cells are light sensitive, in that all cells are effected by light. Travel out of your basement and under the blue sky. Feel the warmth on your skin.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

Photosynthesis is not the same as light sensitive eye cells.

Too lazy to actually read, huh?

Like other Euglenoids, Euglena possess a red eyespot, an organelle composed of carotenoid pigment granules. The red spot itself is not thought to be photosensitive. Rather, it filters the sunlight that falls on a light-detecting structure at the base of the flagellum (a swelling, known as the paraflagellar body), allowing only certain wavelengths of light to reach it. As the cell rotates with respect to the light source, the eyespot partially blocks the source, permitting the Euglena to find the light and move toward it (a process known as phototaxis).

[Mavorpen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena

Photosynthesis is not the same as light sensitive eye cells.

Euglena have cells that detects light which initiates a specific response. So what's the problem, exactly?

[Excidium Planetis]

Aren't those finches still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring?

Technically, yes, in the sense that you could force reproduction between the two. In the "wild," it's not going to happen. I'm not sure what you think that changes.

By some definitions of species, they are still the same species. Arguing that they are distinct is really just semantics.

What you choose not to believe has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Okay. And?

Nothing?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what that is a picture of.

It's an image of Euglena. Photo sensitive cells, no nerve fibers. Clearly, one has use without the other.

Euglena is a photsynthetic organism, not an eye. On a Limpet, it would serve no practical purpose in forming an eye.

I'm in the middle of a rather excellent game of Dominion, and am doing this in between turns .