Evolution Opponents Lose Kansas Board Majority

[Bill]

Show me direct evidence for the existence of a creator and I might change my mind. Otherwise the steamroller of discovey will soon show that the bible is metaphorical rather than literal.

Now THAT's Faith.

M/String theory suggests that an intelligent extra-spatial/dimensional and timeless creator is entirely feasible(not likely- feasible), at least as feasible as ambiogenesis.

I'm smart enough to know that i'm not smart enough to rule out M theory, not when the smartest people on earth get giddy as school girls when they start talking about it.

M theory offers a scientifically possible alternate explanation that doesnt involve delicate chemicals and acids surviving a multi-kiloton release of energy at mach 30.

You could prove the plausibility of that theory by deliberately taking the things you think you'd need for abiogenesis and then putting them in rocks and then just plowing said rocks into the earth from orbit.

That's about what it would take to convince me that everything you needed wouldn't be vaporized on impact.

[Bill]

[Obi-wan voice]
You have taken you're first step into a larger world.
[/Obi-wan voice]

-dale

I do pay attention.

You guys dont seem to realize that in 1986 when i was learning this stuff in school what you're hearing is for the most part what they were teaching.

I discovered reading last night that 1998 changed the thinking on the whole concept of pressure based evolution vs random mutation.

Before 1998, according to the article i was reading, the former was at least accepted as a possibility. Hence my 'backwards thinking' when compared to 2006 theory.

[bandwagon]

Would you agree that the more of the things on that list that are present the better the hunter in question will be?

A snake that constricts is good.

But a snake that constricts and has arms with big-asssed claws, heavy armor plate, venom, and huge tearing teeth....or even a bigger brain is FAR better.

You know, like a Komodo Dragon.

No. A key characteristic is efficiency. The bigger the mass, or the further or faster it has to run, the more it has to eat. Beasts that feeds on rabbits would need much more muscle and stamina, and therefore need to catch many more rabbits, if it was having to carry around armour plate and big assed claws. In fact it could never evolve in that niche. The most efficient rabbit predator would be just a little larger than a rabbit, have stealth and speed, a decent pair of jaws with medium canines, nothing else. Any change from this configuration which did not enhance these performance-limiting features specific for this niche would quickly die out.

[Bill]

No. A key characteristic is efficiency. The bigger the mass, or the further or faster it has to run, the more it has to eat. Beasts that feeds on rabbits would need much more muscle and stamina, and therefore need to catch many more rabbits, if it was having to carry around armour plate and big assed claws. In fact it could never evolve in that niche. The most efficient rabbit predator would be just a little larger than a rabbit, have stealth and speed, a decent pair of jaws with medium canines, nothing else. Any change from this configuration which did not enhance these performance-limiting features specific for this niche would quickly die out.

Clearly the T-rex was not in the rabbit hunting business...he was in the triceratiops type creature hunting business.(if he was a hunter at all, which is now disputed) Certainly grabbing a triceratops in a head lock with your long powerful arms to keep him from holing you with his big assed horns while you tear his face off with your teeth would be a useful skill for a T-rex.

Maybe if that big effing rock didn't intervene; T-rex was evolving into just that beast. Perhaps he did, and we just never found one yet(i read the other day that we've only ever found 2 T-rexes with fore-arms intact).

[ArmchairGeneral]

Okay. One more time. To start with, a crucial distinction. Evolutionarily speaking, "fitness" has nothing to do with how well an organism survives. It is based on one thing, and one thing only: reproductive success. Take your T-rex- regardless of how efficient a predator he is, if he's "fixed", his genes will not be passed on. Now survival, of course, has a strong bearing on how efficient your reproduction is. If the T-rex dies of starvation or injury before he has a chance to reproduce, his genes will not be passed on. But, and this is the crucial thing, selective pressures will ONLY work if the advantage conferred by a trait gives a reproductive advantage. That's why it makes sense that men have the little vulnerability we all know and love. If it was all about survival, them jewels would've long ago disappeared. But it's about passing on the genes, so survival takes second place.

Gotta go, but I'll be back if someone hasn't adequately explained the distinction between random mutation and non-random natural selection while I'm gone.

[Bill]

Okay. One more time. To start with, a crucial distinction. Evolutionarily speaking, "fitness" has nothing to do with how well an organism survives. It is based on one thing, and one thing only: reproductive success. Take your T-rex- regardless of how efficient a predator he is, if he's "fixed", his genes will not be passed on. Now survival, of course, has a strong bearing on how efficient your reproduction is. If the T-rex dies of starvation or injury before he has a chance to reproduce, his genes will not be passed on. But, and this is the crucial thing, selective pressures will ONLY work if the advantage conferred by a trait gives a reproductive advantage. That's why it makes sense that men have the little vulnerability we all know and love. If it was all about survival, them jewels would've long ago disappeared. But it's about passing on the genes, so survival takes second place.

Gotta go, but I'll be back if someone hasn't adequately explained the distinction between random mutation and non-random natural selection while I'm gone.

Im not arguing that natural pressure does affect mutations, im just discussing what it means to be a 'better hunter' because well, it's interesting...like the rest of this thread in it's entirety...and people seem to want to debate the point.

If i said, "Oh, OK" on the 1st page of this thread then this is probably a 1 page thread, and where's the fun in that?

LOL....

[bandwagon]

Okay. One more time. To start with, a crucial distinction. Evolutionarily speaking, "fitness" has nothing to do with how well an organism survives. It is based on one thing, and one thing only: reproductive success.

Not just reproductive success, but the ability of the offspring to survive into adulthood in order to reproduce. That all depends on "fitness". Fitness means the efficiency with which it fills its niche, e.g. its effectiveness as a hunter, or simply the ability to produce huge numbers of offspring so that, despite predation, there is enough chance for at least some of them to reach reproductive age.

[Bill]

Not just reproductive success, but the ability of the offspring to survive into adulthood in order to reproduce. That all depends on "fitness". Fitness means the efficiency with which it fills its niche, e.g. its effectiveness as a hunter, or simply the ability to produce huge numbers of offspring so that, despite predation, there is enough chance for at least some of them to reach reproductive age.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[bandwagon]

im just discussing what it means to be a 'better hunter' because well, it's interesting...

I can see how that would interest you. I suspect that in the description of your character the word "pastoral" would remain unused.

[Bill]

LOL, well i like a quiet day in the country as much as anyone else, but for the most part....no, i'm not what ya'd call a pastoral person by any stretch of the imagination.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Not just reproductive success, but the ability of the offspring to survive into adulthood in order to reproduce. That all depends on "fitness". Fitness means the efficiency with which it fills its niche, e.g. its effectiveness as a hunter, or simply the ability to produce huge numbers of offspring so that, despite predation, there is enough chance for at least some of them to reach reproductive age.

You missed the second part of my post.

"Now survival, of course, has a strong bearing on how efficient your reproduction is. If the T-rex dies of starvation or injury before he has a chance to reproduce, his genes will not be passed on. But, and this is the crucial thing, selective pressures will ONLY work if the advantage conferred by a trait gives a reproductive advantage."

The point I was trying to make was that the fundamental question in evolutionary theory always is reproductive success. All other aspects of "fitness" are important only in their effect on reproduction.

[dalem]

Tha'ts not my understanding of the issue because we've heard again and again about this lovely common ancester -in this thread, many times- that all life sprung from.

Genetics provides strong evidence for a single common ancestor, and probability suggests it, but Evolution as we understand it would would just fine no matter what or how many sources for life there were.

So if the common ancester is not a theorum of evolution(which im sorry, if its not it really ought to be- big bang can at least point to the singularity as the common ancestor, and tell us where it was even),

Your opinions of what Evolution should or should not predict are hardly relevant.

what's the premise for some of the posters on this thread insisting a common ancestor is a legitimate hypothesis?

It is a legitimate hypothesis based on the points I mentioned above.

-dale

[dalem]

double

[dalem]

I do pay attention.

You guys dont seem to realize that in 1986 when i was learning this stuff in school what you're hearing is for the most part what they were teaching.

I discovered reading last night that 1998 changed the thinking on the whole concept of pressure based evolution vs random mutation.

Before 1998, according to the article i was reading, the former was at least accepted as a possibility. Hence my 'backwards thinking' when compared to 2006 theory.

Snipe, it's not your understanding of "2006 theory" that causes difficulty, it's your understanding of "1859 theory".

-dale

[ArmchairGeneral]

I'm gonna have to slightly disagree with you there, Dale. Although the mechanisms of evolution would certainly work regardless of how many sources of life there were, the theory of macroevolution is based on common descent. Much if not most of the evidence for evolution is simply evidence for common descent.