New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species

Vanderbilt University ^ | 23 February 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Everyone be nice, and please remember to use moderator-compliant FReepSpeak^tm in this thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 350 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[bvw]

" The odds that the association is simply due to chance are only one in 250"

So Darwinists have some limited understanding of probability. Would that they apply it more broadly.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" So Darwinists have some limited understanding of probability. Would that they apply it more broadly."

Better than the anti-evo's complete lack of any mathematical sophistication. :)

[ml/nj]

This helps fill a big gap that has existed in evolutionary studies

I thought all this Darwin stuff was layin' flat.

ML/NJ

[PatrickHenry]

Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[Phil Connors]

but... but... the Bible says God made the world in seven days!

[Paladin2]

"Complexity proves design"

LOL

[bill1952]

I didn't know that natural selection was ever in doubt.

[Paladin2]

Perhaps more appropriate:

"The odds are against evolution"

See, no problem with statistics.

[ClearCase_guy]

These threads always descend into the tossing of insults. Some folks say the anti-TOE people start the insults. Some say the TOE folks start the insults.

I'll just note that the evos have a prepared list of insults in their pocket at all times.

[Paladin2]

How do you explain TROP?

[bvw]

Here's a typical and absolutely idiotic view of probability from Talk of the Ascended Ori, oopsy, I mean TalkOrigins.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123 (Penrose 1989). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent.

[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html]

Well, one part if 1010123 is really one part in 10 to the power of 10123, but that may just be a error in mine or their HTML.

Still, I guess, to mathematical idiots or Ascended Beings and Darwinists, 1/2 sounds passably close to 1/10 to the power of 10123. ;-)

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . any kind of ecological characterization, through no fault of ecologists, will be limited in accuracy and precision."

Yet we have "positive statistics" from which we are free to extrapolate support for our anterior assumptions. The whole experiment was undertaken in hopes the results would meet all expectations. How can "natural selection" be a "driving force," when in fact it is merely an arbitrary way of explaining what has already taken place? If there is any driving force involved it will be energy itself, not a concatenation of ascriptions cobbled up by wishful thinkers.

[ConservativeBamaFan]

“There are all these species out there and so few of them are known in intimate detail, so any kind of ecological characterization, through no fault of ecologists, will be limited in accuracy and precision,” Funk says.

Nevertheless, the researchers decided to do the best they could with the information available. . . . . . .

Don’t you just love “science?”

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Well, one part if 1010123 is really one part in 10 to the power of 10123, but that may just be a error in mine or their HTML."

And Penrose pulled that number out of his butt.

"Still, I guess, to mathematical idiots or Ascended Beings and Darwinists, 1/2 sounds passably close to 1/10 to the power of 10123. ;-)"

And to a rabid anti-evo, the above sounds a meaningful calculation about the probability of this universe existing. :)

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Some 5000 years ago!

[Pontiac]

The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

Funk and his colleagues realized that if they used the results of these studies and added an ecological dimension then they would have an approach capable of measuring the link between natural selection and reproductive isolation.

I can think of a couple of on going experiments that refute the natural selection evolution theory quite well.

The first is dogs. Man has removed dogs from the environment and breeding population of wolves for at least 50,000 years. The physical appearance and behavioral make up of dogs has become much different than that of wolves and yet they can breed quite well.

The second is man. Many instances of populations of human populations are isolated for thousands of years in diverse environments and yet when those populations are introduced to other populations breeding readily takes place.

Another would be horses with the same circumstances as dogs and the same out come.

Man has been doing what by Darwin’s theory says should produce new species that can not reproduce with the old species for tens of thousands of years yet man has failed to produce a new species. Dogs are still wolves in reality and horses are still horses.

[Triggerhippie]

O.K. So how do I put this knowledge to practical use...?
How will this bit of knowledge help me live a better, more successful, healthier, happier life?


I'm sure that scientists spent a good bit of money proving something that they already believe (just like creationists do, btw), but it doesn't protect me from TROP, illegal immigrants, higher taxes, bird flu, or democrats.

At the end of the day, this study raises only one question in my mind, "So what?"

[RoadTest]

Evolution is a house of cards.

Here we see "new evidence" added to an unproven and unscientific hypothesis. The evidence must favor the Darwinian take.