yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352 
|
Post by yord on Feb 4, 2009 2:01:29 GMT
I would say that god was a very bad hunch and evolution not much better
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 4, 2009 2:03:03 GMT
but in the reality Im in it was intended
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 8:35:49 GMT
So it's strictly hit or miss? I don't buy that for a second. It takes some time to get your head around it but it is accurate. Darwin used the example of a moth that lives on the trunk of trees. It has a specific colouring that makes it difficult to see so if it remains still it is reasonably safe from predators such as birds. In the middle of the 19th century, after almost 100 years of soot from industrial smoke darkened the trunks of trees, it was discovered that these moths had also darkened and remained camouflaged. Darwin showed that what had happened is that in every batch of off spring, some moths genes mutated and they were born with irregular colouring. Generally, these moths were eaten quite quickly by birds. With darkened tree trunks, those moths which had darkened colouring suddenly had an advantage over those with more conventional colouring. They survived and the conventional moths didn't. No intent. No master plan. No guiding force. Just chance mutation creating an advantage for some. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,076
|
Post by mids on Feb 4, 2009 9:05:07 GMT
So it's strictly hit or miss? I don't buy that for a second. Darwin used the example of a moth that lives on the trunk of trees. It has a specific colouring that makes it difficult to see so if it remains still it is reasonably safe from predators such as birds. In the middle of the 19th century, after almost 100 years of soot from industrial smoke darkened the trunks of trees, it was discovered that these moths had also darkened and remained camouflaged. Darwin showed that what had happened is that in every batch of off spring, some moths genes mutated and they were born with irregular colouring. Generally, these moths were eaten quite quickly by birds. With darkened tree trunks, those moths which had darkened colouring suddenly had an advantage over those with more conventional colouring. They survived and the conventional moths didn't. No intent. No master plan. No guiding force. Just chance mutation creating an advantage for some. Wrong. Darwin showed nothing using the peppered moth and he certainly wasn't aware of genes. The work with the peppered moth wasn't done until well after his death. Oh and by the way, you keep saying most mutations are pathalogic. Untrue. Most are neutral. Nice avatar Marshall. Jessica Alba? |
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 4, 2009 9:21:11 GMT
I suspect patholoical is right, caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 9:41:43 GMT
Wrong. Darwin showed nothing using the peppered moth and he certainly wasn't aware of genes. The work with the peppered moth wasn't done until well after his death. Oh and by the way, you keep saying most mutations are pathalogic. Untrue. Most are neutral. I accept that I attributed the moth research to the wrong person. But it never-the-less is a rather dramatic example of evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolutionI'm sure that everyone and their dog realises that Darwin was not aware of genetics. But his evolution hypothesis stands. The discovery of modern genetic theory has simply confirmed it. The notions of chance mutations occasionally conferring advantage and being passed onto future generations was correctly predicted by Darwin and confirmed by modern genetics. Work on the peppered Moth was done in 1896. Darwin died in 1882. So you are correct to an extent, though not well after his death. And certainly well before the advent of modern genetics. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 4, 2009 17:45:09 GMT
Mids, I don't know if it's Alba, but she's very nice to look at.
About the pepper moths - you say the color mutation went from white to black. If mutations happen purely by chance then 1) why didn't some mutate to black before their environment changed and 2) why didn't some mutate to yellow or orange or beige and not just black?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 18:07:42 GMT
Mids, I don't know if it's Alba, but she's very nice to look at. About the pepper moths - you say the color mutation went from white to black. If mutations happen purely by chance then 1) why didn't some mutate to black before their environment changed and 2) why didn't some mutate to yellow or orange or beige and not just black? Some did have different colours as a result of chance mutations in their genes. When the trees were their original colour, most had the colouring which camouflaged them well. Those that were born with other colours were easily spotted by birds and eaten. Hence they didn't produce any off spring. They were at a disadvantage in the fight for survival. When the trees darkened, the moths which were born with darker colours were better camouflaged and so were better able to survive. Hence they produced off spring and their variation survived. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 4, 2009 18:17:26 GMT
I don't think that's correct, there weren't different colors there was basically light and dark moths.
And apparently they mutated to dark only after their environment changed, meaning it didn't happen by chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 20:22:25 GMT
I don't think that's correct, there weren't different colors there was basically light and dark moths. And apparently they mutated to dark only after their environment changed, meaning it didn't happen by chance. No. Before the environment changed some moths were born dark but most were born lighter. This was because the light moths inherited their colouring from their parent moths. The darker moths were mutations. They wouldn't survive to pass on their mutations to offspring because they would be easily seen and eaten. When the trees became darker, the darker moths were more difficult to see, while the lighter moths became easy prey for birds. The lighter moths died out while the darker moths thrived, passing on their colouring to their offspring. I appreciate the variables. But these observations have been confirmed with modern genetic techniques. In the 19th century when these postulates were first proposed, the variables would have been very valid arguments. This case study is most frequently cited when explaining evolution because it is so dramatic. But we must remember that Darwin's thesis would probably not have become nearly so significant if, in the early 20th century, the papers of Gregor Mendel had not been discovered. (He was the monk who experimented with cross breeding garden peas). It should also be understood that there are still many questions surrounding evolution. But the body of evidence to support it and the subsequent developments has made it as certain as it can be. The problems come when charlatans with ulterior motives, attempt to manipulate this certainty for their own personal gain. Dawkins would, on the face of it, appear to be such an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 4, 2009 20:29:13 GMT
The problems come when charlatans with ulterior motives, attempt to manipulate this certainty for their own personal gain. How do 'charlatans' manipulate the theory of natural selection? As I understand it, the charlatans are religious young earth nitwits? |
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 20:33:34 GMT
That has been covered earlier in this thread.
Do keep up boy!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 4, 2009 20:52:15 GMT
That has been covered earlier in this thread. Specifically, what 'manipulation' has taken place? |
|
