It amazes me that in one thread you're complaining about a lack of experimentation and observation in evolutionary science and in this one you are complaining about experiments and observation IN evolutionary science.  

Any example of selective breeding is a controlled experiment in evolution.  Note the name "evolution through NATURAL SELECTION." Artificial selection is an experiment, that like all experiments removes part of nature so that it can be better quantified.

Such experiments have even given rize to new species (the macroevolution you are always saying doesn't exist)

read

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

selective breeding has nothing to do with evolution..........in evolution a mutation natually occures that favors a certain trait that is succesful for survival or that adapts to the enviroment, the ones that don't have that mutation die out, or at the very least don't last last too long,  and the ones that have it pass that gene off it it's offspring.........in selective breeing the mutated genes are there already, some are more pronoucned then others, so we take those more  animals with those pronounces genes and breed them to make another offspring that hopefully have those same traits.......like in  the case of sheeps  more fleece yeild, then normal.

Quoted: The simple fact is different breeds of dogs do not represent 'speciation'.  Barring physical size extremes, all dogs can breed with each other. Take all of your highly refined breeds of dogs and throw them together back into the wild and within three or four generations, you will have the original mangy yellow dog that constituted the original cannis domesticanis our ancestors threw scraps of meat to by the ancient campfires. Geenes are being shifted and tortured but they are all still present and can be exchanged thru breeding and the dominant traits will re-assert themselves quickly.

OK, I poorly chose the word "speciation."

Let's call it "advancement of a single species."

Same question -

Does natural selection perform the same function over millions of years that a dog breeder does over a few years to promote the desirable traits and cull out the undesirable ones??

Quoted: photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=40661

Quoted: selective breeding has nothing to do with evolution..........

I know. Tell the evolutionists that use it as an example of evolutionary processes.

in evolution a mutation natually occures that favors a certain trait that is succesful for survival or that adapts to the enviroment, the ones that don't have that mutation die out, or at the very least don't last last too long,  and the ones that have it pass that gene off it it's offspring.........

I understand the concept.

It just seems to me that gives natural selection of sort of sentience - same as a dog breeder has.

It also seems to me evolution moves too slow to accomplish what it claims. Given an average dogs life is certainly less than 50 years, it seems like they'd die off before the evolutionary mechanism could ever accomplish its grand designs. (hhhhmmmm....I think this will be another thread)

Or you'd have to have billions and billions of jack russel terriers  all simultaneously trying to develop the same trait just hoping that one gets lucky and retains  the desirable trait.

Quoted: Does natural selection perform the same function over millions of years that a dog breeder does over a few years to promote the desirable traits and cull out the undesirable ones?? Well, you have to consider, left to their own devices, the dogs will unbreed themselves rather quickly.  Kind of like pulling a bowstring and then relaxing it.  Without us, they would interbreed like mad.  Race has no bearing to a dog, he will hit the first bitch in heat he can find.   Remember, this is an animal who eats its own vomit and will hump the sofa.

Indeed. If evolution takes a million years to develop a trait, it seems that the uncontrolled interbreeding and very short life span of a dog would make retaining desirable traits impossible.

Does that make sense??

Quoted: It amazes me that in one thread you're complaining about a lack of experimentation and observation in evolutionary science and in this one you are complaining about experiments and observation IN evolutionary science.

Where did I complain about experiments??

Specifically?


All I've said is "Don't use your sentient experimentation of breeding as evidence nature can do the same thing."

Quoted: Quoted: Eliments of nature and environment can promote genetic variance. . Yes, but only in a comparatively scattered and haphazard manner. And always with a LOSS of genetic info. I would equate the likelihood of natural selection producing my jack russell (with her specific traits and abilities) about as likely as the Craftsmen tool inventory at Sears creating a 2005 Ford Mustang  out of the inventory of the local Advance Auto parts. I guess my real question is this - How does natural selection perform the same function a dog breeder does?

Statement like " When somebody breeds pigs to the point that they get owls, ponies, or rutabagas, it'll be worth noticing." and "I would equate the likelihood of natural selection producing my jack russell (with her specific traits and abilities) about as likely as the Craftsmen tool inventory at Sears creating a 2005 Ford Mustang out of the inventory of the local Advance Auto parts." or, and this is one of my favorites, "If man evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys." exibit an amazing incredulity on the part of the person making such a statement.  If you really want to understand, you need to get over your intelligently designed self for a while.  You have to understand that evolution is not entirely random.

Many books have been written that explain the intricacies, random and non-random factors, the complication of convergence of selection and cummulative effects of evolution.  The two that come to mind right off the top of my head are "The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin" and "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins".

Evolution is not a simple process, you can observe it's affects in less then a million years but the changes are subtle.  I could try to explain it all but in doing so I would be duplicating the efforts of the above two authors as well as a vast number of others who were not mentioned and I'm afraid the post would be rather long.  So instead of doing that, if you really want to understand evolution I suggest you read a book about it.

Having said as much and with the understanding that I am by no means a zoologist or an expert on the theory of evolution I will try to provide some examples.  

Spelunkers searching very deep caves in which there is no natural light source have discovered salamanders that have not eyes.  Well, that is not entirely true.  They have eyes but they are not functional.  They even have eyelids but they are not fuctional either.  Also noteably they are bleach white.  Research is not conclusive due ot a number of factors, but it has also been noted that these Salamaders have developed a alternative means to how they see their world a sort of sonar or echo location similar that which can be observed being used by Bats.  No one knows how long it took for these Salamaders through natural selection to develope these traits.

Presumably, if these Salamanders were intelligently designed to inhabit this particular environement with no light, why would the designer go to the bother of creating them with eyes, eye lids or even eye sockets?

Eyes, think for a minute, how many species of animals have eyes?  Simple enough if you don't consider the divesity of eyes.  Flys have eyes but they are markedly different from human eyes and our eyes are markedly different from the eyes of a squid but a squid eyes are more similar to ours than a flys.  Ponies and owls have eyes too but they are not the same as the human eye.  Then there are the pinhole eyes like those of the Nautilus and parabolic eyes we see in the Limpet and the ammonite like eyes of the Mollusc.

We've been getting taller.  I don't have the article in front of me so I can not quote it but I read an article a few years ago that said something to the affect of during the 14th century the average height of the European White man was around 5'6" and at the time the article was printed the average height of a European was almost 5'10".  Why, was this an intelligently designed change or was it natural selection?

They suggested that it was neither, but a form of intelligent selection but it was by no means devine in it's nature.  Women tend to like tall men, not all of them but most of them.  So tall men have been more likely to be chosen as a mate by the vast majority of women.  This does not mean that only tall men managed to attract wives it only means that they were more likely to attract a mate and over 600 or so years this has resulted in an increase in the average height of the European white male.  That doesn't mean that there are no more midgets or short people nor does it imply that at some point in the foreseable future there will be no midgets or short people.  Perhaps 500,000 years from now if the human race is still around, a midget or a man who only grows to the height of 5'6" will be worth noticing, perhaps not.

Quoted: (someone feel free to correct me if that is not an accurate statement of the process)

it isn't.

Animals don't change based on their envirnoment.

Animals actually don't change period..ever.

What does happen is that some animals survive while others die, mainly because they found food and the others did not.

As a result those that live pass on a certain set of genes.  While the dead animals do not pass on their genes, mainly because they are DEAD!


That is how it works.

It really, really, REALLY is a simple concept


Sgat1r5

Sgat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: selective breeding is what gave us all the differant type of dogs and cat and other animals. We also breed plants. But I don't  believe you actually intend to learn by poisting this thread. Sgatr15 Here in America, you are free to imagine whatever you like, my good friend. But in this case the sarge is correct. Actually, that's not true. I learned that natural selection is presumed to have the same function and capability as the sentient dog breeder in masterminding promoting beneficial traits and eliminating defective traits. (someone feel free to correct me if that is not an accurate statement of the process)

You are wrong and I am correcting you.  Natural selection does have the same function and capability as a dog breeder but in the case of natural selection their is no intelligent selector.  In natural selection the dog breeder is absent.  In that absence factors of nature come in to play.

That is why the call it Natural Selection.

Are you being intentionally abtuse?

Quoted: It also seems to me evolution moves too slow to accomplish what it claims. Given an average dogs life is certainly less than 50 years, it seems like they'd die off before the evolutionary mechanism could ever accomplish its grand designs. (hhhhmmmm....I think this will be another thread)

you forget it only takes a very few of those animals that have that variation to pass it on.........evoloution is not a overnight thing, as well the enviroment of change is not overnight either......just a small suttle change is all that is needed.

Quoted: If you really want to understand, you need to get over your intelligently designed self for a while.  You have to understand that evolution is not entirely random.

Two points scream out at me here....

1. So there IS a certain "sentience" to evolution, if its not entirely random.

2. YOu contradict yourself. YOu say we need to chuck intelligent design, and adopt a non-random evolutionary scheme. Well, which is it? Non random IS intelligent (on some level)

Evolution is not a simple process, you can observe it's affects in less then a million years but the changes are subtle.

Well, that's good, because I don't really have a million years to wait around to see it.

But this is contradictory as well.

The MOST BASIC element of evolution is that time is necessary for speciation - millions of years. Yet we CAN see its effects in less time than millions of years? Which is it? Is evolution fast, or slow?

Answer - see "punctuated equilibrium."

Quoted: We've been getting taller. I don't have the article in front of me so I can not quote it but I read an article a few years ago that said something to the affect of during the 14th century the average height of the European White man was around 5'6" and at the time the article was printed the average height of a European was almost 5'10". Why, was this an intelligently designed change or was it natural selection? Better nutrition.

Stupid.

Quoted: 1. So there IS a certain "sentience" to evolution, if its not entirely random.

It appears random according top science, but it is directed by the Hand of God.

Sgatr15

Quoted: You are wrong and I am correcting you.  Natural selection does have the same function and capability as a dog breeder but in the case of natural selection their is no intelligent selector.  In natural selection the dog breeder is absent.  In that absence factors of nature come in to play. That is why the call it Natural Selection. Are you being intentionally abtuse?

I think the whole concept of "natural selection" is intentioanlly obtuse.

Here's what we observe - its by sentient selection that a new breed (tho NOT a new species) of dog comes about.

So, since it is by sentient choice that a single species is advanced to select the good traits and elminiate the bad ones -

HOW does natural selection not only do that, BUT ALSO create new species?

You tell me natural selection is NOT entirely random (intimating there is some inductive charachteristic to its selection of traits) but its NOT intelligent design.

Leaving me wondering what IS it? Its NOT arbitrary, but it isn't intelligent either.

THAT is what I call an intentioanlly obtuse concept.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. So there IS a certain "sentience" to evolution, if its not entirely random. It appears random according top science, but it is directed by the Hand of God. Sgatr15

While I might disagree, at least that's a logical answer. (which is simply to say, I don't beelive God does do that, but its certainly possible He does)

The anti-theistic evolutionists seem to want to straddle the fence between non-random and non-intelligent.

But again, sarge, I'm PLEADING with you - DO NOT insert religious comment here.

I DO NOT want this kicked into the religion forum.

Quoted: Quoted: 1. So there IS a certain "sentience" to evolution, if its not entirely random. It appears random according top science, but it is directed by the Hand of God. Sgatr15

This is what I don't understand. Why are evolution and religion diametrically opposed?

Think about it.

You're God. You create a world. You want people to have faith.

If you were to change things over time, wouldn't you change them in such a way that they could be explained by the physical discoveries of man?

Otherwise, you end up having man scientifically prove the existence of God. It's no longer a question of faith.

Maybe science is just the process of figuring out what God's doing.  Can't science and faith coexist?

Quoted: This is what I don't understand. Why are evolution and religion diametrically opposed? Think about it. You're God. You create a world. You want people to have faith. If you were to change things over time, wouldn't you change them in such a way that they could be explained by the physical discoveries of man? Otherwise, you end up having man scientifically prove the existence of God. It's no longer a question of faith. Maybe science is just the process of figuring out what God's doing.  Can't science and faith coexist?

PLEASE NO RELIGOUS CONTENT. I DO NOT WANT THIS KICKED INTO RELIGION FORUM

Quoted: I read in another thread that ... Certain aspects of evolution can also be observed in the way in which man has participated in selective breeding of animals and plants to promote desireable traits. AT first blush, this seems contradictory. Selective breeding as a means to remove undersirable traits or promote desirable traits does not seem a concept cohesive with natural selection. I have to imagine no one really thinks selective breeding (sentient advancement of a species by deliberate selection of the best traits and exclusion of negative traits) is in any way evidentiary that the same process happens in nature, without the element of sentience. So perhaps I'm missing the concept , and I'll ask this question - What really is learned about natural selection from (sentient) selective breeding?

Selective breeding is evolution.  From the point of view of the species in question, whether selction criteria for breeding success is suitability for human goals, or (fill in the blank) is imaterial.  The species evolves, i.e. its mean characteristics drift when the local environment favors variations that are within the normal variability of the species.  If a particular environment is sufficiently isolated it is not terribly suprising that over extremely long periods of time, variations can accumulate to the point that  new species evolve.

Dogs are a good example.  It is clearly seen how in certain environments particular traits were favored over others.  In places where herding was common, traits that make a good shepard were selected for.  In other places tracking, or pointing abiltiy were selected for to improve human success at hunting.  It is not hard to imagine that given enough time, some breeds that were particularly isolated from other populations of dogs might have become distinct species.

Quoted: Quoted: You are wrong and I am correcting you.  Natural selection does have the same function and capability as a dog breeder but in the case of natural selection their is no intelligent selector.  In natural selection the dog breeder is absent.  In that absence factors of nature come in to play. That is why the call it Natural Selection. Are you being intentionally abtuse? I think the whole concept of "natural selection" is intentioanlly obtuse. Here's what we observe - its by sentient selection that a new breed (tho NOT a new species) of dog comes about. So, since it is by sentient choice that a single species is advanced to select the good traits and elminiate the bad ones - HOW does natural selection not only do that, BUT ALSO create new species? You tell me natural selection is NOT entirely random (intimating there is some inductive charachteristic to its selection of traits) but its NOT intelligent design. Leaving me wondering what IS it? Its NOT arbitrary, but it isn't intelligent either. THAT is what I call an intentioanlly obtuse concept.

Natural Selection is not intentionally anything.  As I said before:

Many books have been written that explain the intricacies, random and non-random factors, the complication of convergence of selection and cummulative effects of evolution. The two that come to mind right off the top of my head are "The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin" and "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins".

Evolution is not a simple process, you can observe it's affects in less then a million years but the changes are subtle.

If you limit your thinking to, it has to be random or intelligent or arbitrary or intentional then you can't understand evolution or more likely you refuse to understand it because in spite of all attempts to explain it you keep going back to this.

Hey gman, no need to yell.

Quoted: This is what I don't understand. Why are evolution and religion diametrically opposed? Think about it.

They aren't.  Like I have said many, many times.

God gave us the sciences to help us understand the world we live in.

hence, there is no way I can talk about evolution without including God.

Sgatr15]

Quoted: Selective breeding is evolution.

Evolutionsits even in this forum seem split on this.

From the point of view of the species in question, whether selction criteria for breeding success is suitability for human goals, or (fill in the blank) is imaterial.  The species evolves, i.e. its mean characteristics drift when the local environment favors variations that are within the normal variability of the species.  If a particular environment is sufficiently isolated it is not terribly suprising that over extremely long periods of time, variations can accumulate to the point that  new species evolve.

But selective breeding is based on sentient evaluation of what traits to select and what ones to deselect.

Can natural selection do this type of sentient choice?

Dogs are a good example.  It is clearly seen how in certain environments particular traits were favored over others.  In places where herding was common, traits that make a good shepard were selected for.  In other places tracking, or pointing abiltiy were selected for to improve human success at hunting.

Breeders sentiently selected the animals that were the best herders, and bred them, while NOT breeding the poor herders.

The fact that humans can do this does NOT prove that natural slection can, does it??

It is not hard to imagine that given enough time, some breeds that were particularly isolated from other populations of dogs might have become distinct species.

It IS hard for me to imagine random / natural selection could accomplish this the way sentient humans do.

What's even harder to imagine is that a process that requires millions of years could accomplish that natural selection in an animal that ahs a life span of about 20 years.

Seems to me all the good trait animals would die off ( or inter breed with bad trait animals) before evolution EVER gets to accomplish it grandiose claims.

Quoted: Quoted: This is what I don't understand. Why are evolution and religion diametrically opposed? Think about it. They aren't.  Like I have said many, many times. God gave us the sciences to help us understand the world we live in. hence, there is no way I can talk about evolution without including God. Sgatr15]

Then  please do not post in this thread.

I IM'd you asking politely, giving my reasons why.

Can you not honor my request??

Please?

Quoted: Statement like " When somebody breeds pigs to the point that they get owls, ponies, or rutabagas, it'll be worth noticing."

Actually, it's a very straightforward point, free of the a priori reasoning that underlies evolutionary dogma. If species arise and are differentiated through natural selection, where are the verified examples of new species - incapable of producing viable, fertile offspring through breeding with members of the antecedent species - produced by either natural selection or by selective breeding? That is the essence of evolutionary theory: that new and distinct species arise from older species as a result of viability-enhancing mutations; that figs are genetically descended from some non-fig ancestor whose pollen will not fertilize figs. I have no analytical problem with the proposition that men descended from apes, but there are still apes. Assuming that species arise as a result of mutation among antecedent apecies, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the original species in whose bloodline the mutation(s) did not arise would still be able to reproduce and would have descendants living alongside the new species.

The problem is this: in a hundred zillion generations of fruit flies observed for the express purpose of documenting genetic variations, we still get Drosophila melanogaster - maybe with red eyes, maybe with undersized heads, but still Drosophila melanogaster and not Drosophila QED , a separate species. Somewhere there ought to be a point at which one could say "This one here was conceived by two members of Species A, but it is not a member of Species A." AFAIK, there is no such point, in any species. AFAIK, the proof of this phenomenon consists of saying that Animal B has genetic and physical characteristics in common with Animal A and following it up with the statement that B evolved from A.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a documented example somewhere of a mated pair of a given species having a descendant of a different species. So far as I know, though, evolution is a proposition which relies as much on inference, supposition, and faith as does any religion.

yes lets keep this "god" nonesense out, if you want to talk about "god" take it to the religion forum..........again selective breeing is not natural selection........those traits are already there, and have been, in varying degrees, for a long. long time.....what man does is just picks out the animals that have more of that trait, and breed them to produce another offspring that might take on those favored traits, of course that is not always the case.  

Quoted: yes lets keep this "god" nonesense out, if you want to talk about "god" take it to the religion forum..........again selective breeing is not natural selection........those traits are already there, and have been, in varying degrees, for a long. long time.....what man does is just picks out the animals that have more of that trait, and breed them to produce another offspring that might take on those favored traits, of course that is not always the case.

+1, on all counts.

Yeeeshh, just create a Creation vs. Evolution Forum already!   I know at least one member that would be posting there alot!  Isn't this the 3rd or 4rth thread about this in as many days?

EPOCH  

Quoted: I have no analytical problem with the proposition that men descended from apes, but there are still apes. Assuming that species arise as a result of mutation among antecedent apecies, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the original species in whose bloodline the mutation(s) did not arise would still be able to reproduce and would have descendants living alongside the new species. .

Given what I observe in the world at large, I have a hard time believing a single species can branch into a new species, and yet retain the original species - without some sort of mastermind behind the whole process.

Am I missing something?

Quoted: Yeeeshh, just create a Creation vs. Evolution Forum already!   I know at least one member that would be posting there alot!  Isn't this the 3rd or 4rth thread about this in as many days? EPOCH

If these threads don't interest you, don't participate. Don't even enter them.

Thank you.

Quoted: Quoted: I have no analytical problem with the proposition that men descended from apes, but there are still apes. Assuming that species arise as a result of mutation among antecedent apecies, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the original species in whose bloodline the mutation(s) did not arise would still be able to reproduce and would have descendants living alongside the new species. . Given what I observe in the world at large, I have a hard time believing a single species can branch into a new species, and yet retain the original species - without some sort of mastermind behind the whole process. Am I missing something?

Yes.

Where do you think birds, insects, etc on polynesians islands came from?   The obviously arrived at the islands (some earlier than others) from somewhere else - blown on the wind, driftwood, etc.

So you can get a group of boobies, iguanas, hawks or whatever - blown onto polonesian islands from somewhere else.  When they first arrive, they are identical to the original population they came from (on some mainland), but are now in a completely different environment.  Maybe it's volcanic, instead of lush and tropical.  Maybe the predators species are completely different, meaning a lot of them might get eaten, and only those with traits to survive these new predators will survive to breed.  Maybe the prey species for it to eat are compeltely different, and only those with traits to eat enough of the new prey will survive to breed.  Withint a relatively short time span, the survival of the fittest selection and breeding can lead to a dramatic divergence between the NEW branch of the species in the new environment, and the OLD branch of the species back in the original environment.  

Give it enough time (thousands, tens of thousands, millions of generations), and you'll have new species - but the old species will still exist.



Requires no mastermind - just random wind, driftwood, etc - and an ASSLOAD of TIME.   That's a more parsimonious explanation than a deity doing it.

Quoted: Quoted: I have no analytical problem with the proposition that men descended from apes, but there are still apes. Assuming that species arise as a result of mutation among antecedent apecies, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that members of the original species in whose bloodline the mutation(s) did not arise would still be able to reproduce and would have descendants living alongside the new species. . Given what I observe in the world at large, I have a hard time believing a single species can branch into a new species, and yet retain the original species - without some sort of mastermind behind the whole process. Am I missing something?

There's a population of a hundred snails. A mutation occurs in the offspring of snail pair #35, and is passed on down that bloodline. The other 49 bloodlines continue, without the mutation, to produce ordinary, unevolving snails, while bloodline #35 continues to "exploit" the mutation, so that eventually there is a population of hermit crabs whose Great X 10 to the 25th power  Grandparents were snails.

Quoted: Selective breeding is evolution.  From the point of view of the species in question, whether selction criteria for breeding success is suitability for human goals, or (fill in the blank) is imaterial.  The species evolves, i.e. its mean characteristics drift when the local environment favors variations that are within the normal variability of the species.  If a particular environment is sufficiently isolated it is not terribly suprising that over extremely long periods of time, variations can accumulate to the point that  new species evolve. Dogs are a good example.  It is clearly seen how in certain environments particular traits were favored over others.  In places where herding was common, traits that make a good shepard were selected for.  In other places tracking, or pointing abiltiy were selected for to improve human success at hunting.  It is not hard to imagine that given enough time, some breeds that were particularly isolated from other populations of dogs might have become distinct species.

Indeed and speaking of intelligent design, if intelligent design is responsible for creation then why did the entity who intelligently designed life design species that are now extinct.  If a sentient being went to the trouble of designing an animal one would expect that they would want said specie of creature to survive and have a vested interest in assuring they had an environment to survive in.

If this is not the case then one has to question the intelligence of the designer.  If an intelligent sentient being create a creature like the Dodo bird one would have to assume that they would not create a creature like a human that would hunt it to extinction.

Lets turn this around a little.  What is the evidence that supports intelligent design that garandman is such a fan of?

Quoted: Where did I complain about experiments?? Specifically? All I've said is "Don't use your sentient experimentation of breeding as evidence nature can do the same thing."

The whole thread is a complaint about using artificial selection as an experimental process to describe evolution (which is natural.)  The argument is inane, because experiments by definition have variables manipulated by man, not nature.

OK, I poorly chose the word "speciation." Let's call it "advancement of a single species."

incorrect term again, speciation is the appearance of a new reproductively isolated species.

Does natural selection perform the same function over millions of years that a dog breeder does over a few years to promote the desirable traits and cull out the undesirable ones??

No, because natural selection does not have a goal in mind.

It also seems to me evolution moves too slow to accomplish what it claims. Given an average dogs life is certainly less than 50 years, it seems like they'd die off before the evolutionary mechanism could ever accomplish its grand designs. (hhhhmmmm....I think this will be another thread)

it doesn't matter if a single dog dyes, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.  Next, evolution does not have any "grand design."

Or you'd have to have billions and billions of jack russel terriers all simultaneously trying to develop the same trait just hoping that one gets lucky and retains the desirable trait.

Again, it doesn't matter what happens to a single organism, evolution happens to populations.

Indeed. If evolution takes a million years to develop a trait, it seems that the uncontrolled interbreeding and very short life span of a dog would make retaining desirable traits impossible. Does that make sense??

No, because evolution doesn’t take millions of years to produce a trait.  The majority of natural selection acts on traits that already exist.  If, one in a million reproductive cycles, a new trait does appear, it is relatively instantaneous on a geological time frame. How fast that trait spreads in the population is governed by the Hardy-Weinburg equation.

1. So there IS a certain "sentience" to evolution, if its not entirely random.

Any selection is non random, wether it be natural or otherwise.  This does not imply sentience, nature moves along by natural laws, from subatomic particles to the rotation of galaxies.  It is not random it does not imply sentience.

The MOST BASIC element of evolution is that time is necessary for speciation - millions of years. Yet we CAN see its effects in less time than millions of years? Which is it? Is evolution fast, or slow?

Evolution does not have a fixed rate, no one ever said it did, you’re the only one suggesting that it should.  The formation of a new species has been observed in a population of annelid worms in as few as to years, in populations of bacteria in as little as a month.  There are rift lakes in Africa that have hundreds of species of cichlid fishes that started out with five 10K years ago.

Here's what we observe - its by sentient selection that a new breed (tho NOT a new species) of dog comes about. So, since it is by sentient choice that a single species is advanced to select the good traits and elminiate the bad ones - HOW does natural selection not only do that, BUT ALSO create new species?

I have provided an example of artificial selection producing a new species yet you chose to ignor it.

You tell me natural selection is NOT entirely random (intimating there is some inductive charachteristic to its selection of traits) but its NOT intelligent design.

again, a lack of randomness does not imply design

I was interested THE FIRST TIME you posted this.  Now it's just redundant bickering and poorly veiled attempts at pushing your point of view...  

But I will respect your thread and leave now.  However I do look forward to the day you post something on a different topic, perhaps living up to your name and maybe posting a few pics of that Garand?

EPOCH  

Quoted: The problem is this: in a hundred zillion generations of fruit flies observed for the express purpose of documenting genetic variations, we still get Drosophila melanogaster - maybe with red eyes, maybe with undersized heads, but still Drosophila melanogaster and not Drosophila QED ,

has it ever occured to you that the species is perfect in it's natural envioroment that it's design is sucessful that it didn't have to go through the natural selection process? or what you are looking at is the end result of that natual selection process, where it evelove to a fit perfectly in it's enviroment?

look at the ant.......they found a ant that was trapped in tree sap, that turned to amber, and that ant from millions of years ago, is no different then the ant you see today. the alligator is another........true it got smaller then it's ancestors but they haven't change that much from what is modern alligators. it all depends on how succesful the species is in it's enviroment

Quoted: If species arise and are differentiated through natural selection, where are the verified examples of new species - incapable of producing viable, fertile offspring through breeding with members of the antecedent species - produced by either natural selection or by selective breeding?

many examples of exactly that

observed instances of speciation

Quoted: Quoted: Selective breeding is evolution.   Evolutionsits even in this forum seem split on this. From the point of view of the species in question, whether selction criteria for breeding success is suitability for human goals, or (fill in the blank) is imaterial.  The species evolves, i.e. its mean characteristics drift when the local environment favors variations that are within the normal variability of the species.  If a particular environment is sufficiently isolated it is not terribly suprising that over extremely long periods of time, variations can accumulate to the point that  new species evolve. But selective breeding is based on sentient evaluation of what traits to select and what ones to deselect. Can natural selection do this type of sentient choice? Dogs are a good example.  It is clearly seen how in certain environments particular traits were favored over others.  In places where herding was common, traits that make a good shepard were selected for.  In other places tracking, or pointing abiltiy were selected for to improve human success at hunting.   Breeders sentiently selected the animals that were the best herders, and bred them, while NOT breeding the poor herders. The fact that humans can do this does NOT prove that natural slection can, does it?? It is not hard to imagine that given enough time, some breeds that were particularly isolated from other populations of dogs might have become distinct species. It IS hard for me to imagine random / natural selection could accomplish this the way sentient humans do. What's even harder to imagine is that a process that requires millions of years could accomplish that natural selection in an animal that ahs a life span of about 20 years. Seems to me all the good trait animals would die off ( or inter breed with bad trait animals) before evolution EVER gets to accomplish it grandiose claims.

Good grief!

I will take one more crack at this and then give up.

For starters forget about sentience, it doesn't matter.

All that matters is the following:

1)  All populations have variability, some distribution of characteristics about the mean.

2)  Not every individual in a population will have the same success at reproduction as every other.

3)  Reproductive success is determined, in part, by the environment in which a particular individual finds itself.

4)  Over time the environment changes.  Rivers change course, mountains go up, mountains go down, regions become dryer, regions become wetter, regions become more isolated, regions become less isolated, etc.

Those four elements are all that are necessary for evolution to take place.  The mean characteristics of a population are always going to be determined by what characteristics tend to lead to the greatest reproductive success for that population.  You can see it in people.  Populations of people that were isolated from one another for sufficiently long periods of time developed distinct apperances.  Since individuals can't change the color of their eyes, skin, etc. the only explanation is that the individuals that tended to have a certain appearance in those isolated populations tended to enjoy more success at reproduction.  Maybe it is because people that looked a particular way tended to have more resistance to particular local illnesses, or maybe people in that poplulation just thought that darker skin and curlier hair was "hotter" (or lighter hair and bluer eyes were "hotter") depending on where you are talking about.  In some cases it might be possible to discover the why, in others, not.

Evolution is not complicated, it is perfectly natural and simple.

Evolution is not goal oriented.  Organisms don't evolve on purpose, there is no comittee that decides what features are to be modified.  Individual organisms don't evolve at all.  In is an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time.

There is no restriction on the why of variable breeding success as long as it is a function of the characteristics of the organsim.

Quoted: Quoted: We've been getting taller. I don't have the article in front of me so I can not quote it but I read an article a few years ago that said something to the affect of during the 14th century the average height of the European White man was around 5'6" and at the time the article was printed the average height of a European was almost 5'10". Why, was this an intelligently designed change or was it natural selection? Better nutrition. Stupid.

Not the most astute comeback...

My $0.02... Natural selection, as stated numerous times within the thread, is performed without an "independent outside influence" (in this case breeder/s); primary objective is survival of the species. This is normally achieved through the stronger / bigger animal being able to bully his way past competitors and impregnate the female.

Selective breeding is a continuation of a desirable trait, with continuation of that trait being the primary concern - not strength of the line - by an "independent outside influence", in this case, the breeder. Whether that trait is an orange coat, blue eyes, or long tail - none of these will have a direct bearing on physical health and reproductive capability.

Quoted: Given what I observe in the world at large, I have a hard time believing a single species can branch into a new species, and yet retain the original species - without some sort of mastermind behind the whole process. Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something and you are missing it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

In the theory of evolution there is no mastermind.  So for the sake of argument since you apparently want to discuss evolution can you for just drop the whole intelligent, intentional design theory that you have been holding on to like an old woman holding on to her last kiss?

Are you capapble of doing that?

In the theory of evolution there are random and non-random factors, there are environmental factors (these include a whole subset of climatatory factors), there are cummulative and non-cummulative factors.  There are survival factors, there are predatory factors, there are predation factors and there are convergent and non-convergent factors.  There are food, lack of food, change in food sources and elimination of food source factors.

Where dinosaurs intelligently designed?  If so why?  Were they intelligently designed to become extinct?  If so why?

garandman, have you ever observed a dinosaur?  Does this mean they did not exist?  Does a tyranasourus rex have to bite your fucking leg off before you admit that they existed?

I doubt that you have observed a dinosaur but I am sure that you have observed the fossilized remains of these creatures and illustrated recreations of our best estimation of what they looked like.

Have you ever seen a single cell ameoba?  They are rather small and can not be seen with your naked eye.  According to the theory of evolution all life evovled from a single cell amoeba.  Single cell amoeba's still exist and so do we.

How does one go about intelligently designing something like a Duck Billed Palypus or a an Artic Toad?

Oh I think I'll design a toad that only surfaces to mate and eat when the temperature goes above 40 degrees.  When the temperature is below freesing  they will burrow into the ground and be frozen solid.  When they temperature is above 40 degrees long enough for them them to thaw out they will have just enough time to eat and fuck before it's time to get frozen again.

Do either of these examples of creatures fill a vital role in our over all existance?  If the Platypus or the Arctic toad dissapeared from the earth who exactlhy would be impacted?

Selective breeding is just forced evolution.

ok i didnt really read the thread, but here is an example of selective breeding in animals and i'll bring it up to us in a second.

pecocks... they have colorful feathers. why? because it takes nutrition to produce those colors in thier feathers. so when they flaunt themselves, its showing the pehens that they are a good strong hunter and can provide. then the pehen makes eggs for the pecock to fertilize. pecocks who were born with bad hunting traites (small or soft beaks, small tallons, etc), were bred out.

ok for humans. for hundreds of years, being over weight was atractive in a man because it ment that you could more than provide for themselves, and prosibbly a family. plumpness was good, people who couldnt make enough grain, or have enough servants to do it werent desired as much. only it doesnt really work well with us because humans are retarded.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We've been getting taller. I don't have the article in front of me so I can not quote it but I read an article a few years ago that said something to the affect of during the 14th century the average height of the European White man was around 5'6" and at the time the article was printed the average height of a European was almost 5'10". Why, was this an intelligently designed change or was it natural selection? Better nutrition. Stupid. Not the most astute comeback...

Yes well had the response been well thought out or explained I would have perhaps spent more time typing a well thought out response.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We've been getting taller. I don't have the article in front of me so I can not quote it but I read an article a few years ago that said something to the affect of during the 14th century the average height of the European White man was around 5'6" and at the time the article was printed the average height of a European was almost 5'10". Why, was this an intelligently designed change or was it natural selection? Better nutrition. Stupid. Not the most astute comeback... Yes well had the response been well thought out or explained I would have perhaps spent more time typing a well thought out response.

I have actually heard the nuttition aspect re  average height mentioned in places other than here.

(It does appear to be a hasty response to your question)

*Intermission*

Quoted: I have actually heard the nuttition aspect re  average height mentioned in places other than here. (It does appear to be a hasty response to your question)

Mine is a hasty response?  Perhaps if Tango7 had felt compelled to expound on his "better nutrition" response I would have spent more time in mine.  Shame on me.  I think not.

Ok so you've heard that nutrition has had an impact on the increased height of European white male.  

In the mean time has better nutrition increased the average height of the Japanese male or the Australian aboriginal?