Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I, too, could make up scenarios and ascribe characteristics to A , B, C , etc to show them wiped out by any number of calamities.

(A has a heart defect which kills it when it runs fast to escape predators. C has a tendency toward muscular atrophy which severely shortens its life, etc)

Your original point had to do with breeding.

Unfortunately for you, B had the advantage since it had more breeding options/possibilities.

So you had to make something else up.

real life wrote:

I, too, could make up scenarios and ascribe characteristics to A , B, C , etc to show them wiped out by any number of calamities.

(A has a heart defect which kills it when it runs fast to escape predators. C has a tendency toward muscular atrophy which severely shortens its life, etc)

Your original point had to do with breeding.

Unfortunately for you, B had the advantage since it had more breeding options/possibilities.

So you had to make something else up.

It's horrible when someone has to "make up" reality..


Sorry, real life. You are the one that "made up" a scenario in which creatures didn't have to anything but breed to survive.

Not at all.

His scenario showed B evolving from A.

Why was B 'selected for' if it did not have a 'survival advantage over A?

But then he wanted to postulate some reason for the extinction of B. So it's easy to say 'this mythical critter died out for such and such reason'.

Evolution is so convenient because you can selectively apply whatever reason you want to make the story come out Just So.

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:
There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

I, too, could make up scenarios and ascribe characteristics to A , B, C , etc to show them wiped out by any number of calamities.

Your original point had to do with breeding.

Not at all.

His scenario showed B evolving from A.

Why was B 'selected for' if it did not have a 'survival advantage over A?

real life wrote:

I, too, could make up scenarios and ascribe characteristics to A , B, C , etc to show them wiped out by any number of calamities.

You'd be wrong.

What I did was come up with a scenario of A, B and C with a single characteristic. Length of neck. I didn't make up characteristics and ascribe them randomly. I assigned one characteristic and based all the selection pressure assumptions on that characteristic.

Quote:

Your original point had to do with breeding.

No, it wasn't. You obsessed over breeding, because there isn't a single religious fundamentalist I've met that isn't obsessed with issues regarding sex.

...No, it wasn't. You obsessed over breeding, because there isn't a single religious fundamentalist I've met that isn't obsessed with issues regarding sex...

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:
There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

Your post # 2923701 on page 267 had nothing to do with neck length, only breeding was addressed.

What you fail to grasp, RL, is that there is no reason that varieties cannot reproduce. However, if you were to revive every single extinct organism that ever existed, you would find that all living things are a variety of each other. That is the argument that Darwin made.

The closer they are together, they more likely they are to reproduce. The species only arises when intermediates die off, thus severing the connection between one group and another.

In other words...

Let's say A evolves into B then C.

A can reproduce with B, but not C. Their offspring can then reproduce with C.
C can reproduce with B, but not A. Their offspring can then reproduce with A.

They are all varieties of each other, however. But due to B's closeness to both A and C, it will be competing with both A and C. Eventually, the combined forces of A and C will wipe out B. Their ability to cross-breed thus disappears.

Likewise your followup post #2924748 on the next page did not mention neck length.

You did not introduce the new characteristic till your post #2925049.

you, RL....completely ignore the fact that varieties competing does not mean competing for mates.

It means competing for food, competing to survive. That is the context of what Darwin meant when he said competition.

A, B and C each have a unique characteristic. That I didn't specify the characteristic doesn't matter. They each had a characteristic to begin with that would have been selected for!

It seems to me that you're getting all your info from people who have the same views as you; to me, that is the surest sign of intellectual cowardice.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

you, RL....completely ignore the fact that varieties competing does not mean competing for mates.

It means competing for food, competing to survive. That is the context of what Darwin meant when he said competition.

I think this would be news to Darwin, were he yet alive.

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:
There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
There must be [size=28]differential survival [/size]and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

If the critter survived.......well it's evolution. He was better adapted.

If the critter didn't survive.......well it's evolution. He wasn't better adapted.

Parados, your claims are not entirely accurate. There are times when the weaker or less fit individual survives;