Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Which is a useless concept. How do we measure it? This population survived, that one didn't. Wow, it must have been more able to survive.

As far as I understand, it's measured as the relative amount of adult surviving offspring a single individual has had in relation to the average of the population.
It's not a useless concept, why would it be useless in your opinion?

That might be true in some very local or controlled situations, but it is no counter to what I said.

For a start, I'm not using the useless term of "fitness"; I used "integrity."

A population's genome is more likely to have greater integrity with less diversity.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you think "integrity" means. Pls explain.
Also I never meant to counter what you said, I'm just correcting your misconceptions

Thanks for that, Cobra.

Still wondering, who that alter ego of mine is ....

 

[zzub]

Nope. It's just a theory.

Never heard of epigenetics, huh?

Seems you have not.

Likely because the homo rapes the kid, messing him up.

:duh:

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Why should I? The title is obviously wrong. Evolution is just a theory.

This is truly disappointing.
It's as if you already know the evidence is compelling, and you just don't want to risk a look....

What are you scared of?





PS: And do look up the meaning of scientific theory, please

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. It's just a theory.

Simple assertion. The theory is correct, so it is a fact. It is both a theory and a fact. A factual theory.

 

[Stripe]

The theory is correct, so it is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

 

[Stripe]

It's as if you already know the evidence is compelling, and you just don't want to risk a look.

:darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

It's not a useless concept, why would it be useless in your opinion?

I explained already. Whatever survives, survives. Therefore, it was more survivable.

Unless you're sold out to evolution, it's just a meaningless observation of numbers.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you think "integrity" means. Pls explain.

It's all there. The previous big-cat population was able to produce the variety we see today, but today's diversified populations cannot produce such variation. They are headed for extinction.

 

[6days]

All of science is wrong? Or perhaps science is self-correcting: errors do come to light and get corrected.

We agree. (Sort of)

Science does self correct, but my example was of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Even though science showed the 48 chromosome belief was false, people continued to believe. (That was one example but there are many)

 

[Jose Fly]

Natural SELECTION only affects things what ALREADY exist. It is NOT a creative force that makes NEW things.

No one has said otherwise.

Before: Peppered Moths of different colors.
After: Peppered Moths of different colors.

With a change in the allele frequencies of the population.

No adaptation, no change to the existing genes, etc. etc. etc.

????? Of course there was adaptation. The genetic makeup of the population changed in response to changing selective pressures (namely differential predation).

If predators ate every last Peppered moth of one color, there would still be NO NEW creature created. Just the loss of any existing one.

I suppose that would be meaningful if the peppered moth scenario was being touted as an example of the evolution of "new creatures".

Is this hard for you to understand?

Apparently not as hard as it is for you. But then, I'm not pitting my religious beliefs against reality.

 

[Right Divider]

No one has said otherwise.

Good to see that you can understand that.

With a change in the allele frequencies of the population.


????? Of course there was adaptation. The genetic makeup of the population changed in response to changing selective pressures (namely differential predation).

There was no adaptation due to environmental pressure. Both colors of moth already existed.

The GENES themselves did NOT change due to some getting eaten. Both sets of genes ALREADY existed.

The definition that I found for adaptation in regards to biology is: "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment."

Neither color was an adaptation to BECOME better suited to its environment. Both colors ALREADY EXISTED.

I suppose that would be meaningful if the peppered moth scenario was being touted as an example of the evolution of "new creatures".

In what way is it meaningful? Both already existed and some got eaten. Not "adaption" at all.

Apparently not as hard as it is for you. But then, I'm not pitting my religious beliefs against reality.

:rotfl:

 

[Jose Fly]

There was no adaptation due to environmental pressure.

The genetic composition of the population changed in response to selective predation, and to you that's not adaptation due to environmental pressure? Creationists, if nothing else, are definitely entertaining.

Both colors of moth already existed.

But obviously something changed, so what was it?

The GENES themselves did NOT change due to some getting eaten. Both sets of genes ALREADY existed.

So what did change?

The definition that I found for adaptation in regards to biology is: "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment."

So you're saying that regardless of the proportion of dark/light moths at any given time, the population's suitability for the environment never changed? If that's true, why the shift in the ratio of dark/light?

In what way is it meaningful? Both already existed and some got eaten. Not "adaption" at all.

I guess in creationist world, even something so simple as a change in the proportion of dark/light moths is something that must be denied.

Hilarious.

 

[Right Divider]

The genetic composition of the population changed in response to selective predation, and to you that's not adaptation due to environmental pressure? Creationists, if nothing else, are definitely entertaining.

But obviously something changed, so what was it?

So what did change?

So you're saying that regardless of the proportion of dark/light moths at any given time, the population's suitability for the environment never changed? If that's true, why the shift in the ratio of dark/light?

I guess in creationist world, even something so simple as a change in the proportion of dark/light moths is something that must be denied.

Hilarious.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you cannot understand this because of your blinders.

There were ALREADY both kinds of Peppered Moths existing.

There was NO GENETIC change in the moths. Some of one color were removed from the equation.

This does NOT lead to any NEW species are required by the theory of evolution per expansion of the gene pool.

Hilarious indeed!

 

[Jose Fly]

There was NO GENETIC change in the moths. Some of one color were removed from the equation.

So there was a change in the genetic makeup of the population.

And that change was due to differentiatial predation.

And the result was a population of moths that were better suited for the specific environment.

What part of that isn't getting through to you?

This does NOT lead to any NEW species are required by the theory of evolution per expansion of the gene pool.

Sheesh.....how many times do you have to be told....no one is citing this as an example of speciation. (We don't need to because we already have plenty of those)

This is presented in textbooks as an example of natural selection causing a population to adapt to a changing environment.

Understand?

 

[Right Divider]

So there was a change in the genetic makeup of the population.

And that change was due to differentiatial predation.

And the result was a population of moths that were better suited for the specific environment.

What part of that isn't getting through to you?

Both species already existed. An example of potential extinction perhaps.

Sheesh.....how many times do you have to be told....no one is citing this as an example of speciation. (We don't need to because we already have plenty of those)

This is presented in textbooks as an example of natural selection causing a population to adapt to a changing environment.

Understand?

Once AGAIN, there was NO ADAPTATION. Both ALREADY existed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Both species already existed. An example of potential extinction perhaps.

Both species? Geez....at least try and keep up.

Once AGAIN, there was NO ADAPTATION. Both ALREADY existed.

Lol. What exactly is "adaptation" to you?

 

[Right Divider]

Both species? Geez....at least try and keep up.

Lol. What exactly is "adaptation" to you?

There was no change in their existing genes due to predators eating some of them.

I guess that your "evolution" is so intelligent that changes occur in advance of environmental pressures "just in case".

 

[gcthomas]

There was no change in their existing genes due to predators eating some of them.

I guess that your "evolution" is so intelligent that changes occur in advance of environmental pressures "just in case".

Of course there are mutations that occur before the environmental pressure.

These may exist in small numbers of individuals, so that when the conditions change (such that these mutations represent a competetive advantage), then their relative frequency in the gene pool increases.

How did you think it was supposed to work?

 

[Right Divider]

Of course there are mutations that occur before the environmental pressure.

These may exist in small numbers of individuals, so that when the conditions change (such that these mutations represent a competetive advantage), then their relative frequency in the gene pool increases.

How did you think it was supposed to work?

Your "evolution" is very wise and forward looking.

 

[Jose Fly]

There was no change in their existing genes due to predators eating some of them.

So what did change? And what is adaptation to you? I keep asking you these questions and you keep dodging. Why?

I guess that your "evolution" is so intelligent that changes occur in advance of environmental pressures "just in case".

Come on.....you're not this dim, are you?

 

[Right Divider]

So what did change? I keep asking you and you keep dodging. Why?

Come on.....you're not this dim, are you?

Both already existed. Do you have actual evidence that they had a single common ancestor? How far back does your actual scientific evidence go in this respect?

Your "theory" is just full of wild speculation and "just so" stories because it just has to be true; otherwise you might have to believe the truth.