|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 2, 2017 6:39:27 GMT
He does have a rather odd posting style. He'll post some weird gibberish, someone will call him out on it, typically he won't respond. It's like drive by retardation. Arguing on the internet, special Olympics... Anyway, scientists have this little trick they do this all the time, "fudge factors". Data doesn't fit the theory? It's their version of divine intervention. Do you know how trivial it would be to attribute all racial differences in intelligence to "genetic mutation"? Seriously, is a German Shepard more intelligent than a bulldog because it was raised in a more stimulating environment? So the answer to my question is no. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 2, 2017 7:44:47 GMT
Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? I absolutely do think that this statement demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the theory of natural selection, with the caveat that the way you have presented it is to try to debunk natural selection. Now assuming you have not taken it out of context then, yes the person who said this does not understand natural selection, if however it was intended to say "actually natural selection neither explains nor intends to explain how the 'fittest' got here" then it is a valid point. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what the point you think the statement has? That woulD be you natural selection isnt even supposeD to explain abiogenesis.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 2, 2017 8:00:25 GMT
"Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest"~ Hugo de Vries What do you think De Vries meant by it? Given that his most famous work is - Species and Varieties Their Origin by Mutation in fact he coined the term mutationHugo de Vries (1901) put forward a theory of evolution, called mutation theory. The theory states that evolution is a jerky process where new varieties and species are formed by mutations (discontinuous variations) that function as raw material of evolution. www.yourarticlelibrary.com/mutation/mutation-theory-mutation-theory-of-evolution-by-hugo-de-vries/12255/Here's the link, it also has the quote, in context www.gutenberg.org/files/7234/7234-h/7234-h.htmIn conclusion, summing up all our arguments, we may state that there is a broad analogy between breeding selection in the widest sense of the word, including variety testing, race improvement and the trial of the breeding ability on one side, and natural selection on the other. This analogy however, points to the importance of the selection between elementary species, and the very subordinate role of intraspecific selection in nature. It strongly supports our view of the origin of species by mutation instead of continuous selection. Or, to put it in the terms chosen lately by Mr. Arthur Harris in a friendly criticism of my views: "Natural selection may explain the survival [826] of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 2, 2017 8:25:13 GMT
Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? I absolutely do think that this statement demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the theory of natural selection, with the caveat that the way you have presented it is to try to debunk natural selection. Now assuming you have not taken it out of context then, yes the person who said this does not understand natural selection, if however it was intended to say "actually natural selection neither explains nor intends to explain how the 'fittest' got here" then it is a valid point. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what the point you think the statement has? I don't think Cody has understood the context of the quote. Current evolutionary theory is based on Random Mutation and natural Selection (plus other factors) Darwin - Natural Selection De Vries - Random Mutation De Vries wasn't contradicting Darwin's work, he was adding to it. He even coined the term mutation and his most famous work is - Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation, his theory was that mutations provided the variation for natural selection to work on. I'm not really sure why a creationist would quote an of De Vries' work.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jun 2, 2017 14:08:19 GMT
I absolutely do think that this statement demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the theory of natural selection, with the caveat that the way you have presented it is to try to debunk natural selection. Now assuming you have not taken it out of context then, yes the person who said this does not understand natural selection, if however it was intended to say "actually natural selection neither explains nor intends to explain how the 'fittest' got here" then it is a valid point. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what the point you think the statement has? I don't think Cody has understood the context of the quote. Current evolutionary theory is based on Random Mutation and natural Selection (plus other factors) Darwin - Natural Selection De Vries - Random Mutation De Vries wasn't contradicting Darwin's work, he was adding to it. He even coined the term mutation and his most famous work is - Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation, his theory was that mutations provided the variation for natural selection to work on. I'm not really sure why a creationist would quote an of De Vries' work. I agree that de Vries was no creationist, but his theory was a competitor to Darwin's. Whereas Darwin held that new species arise by gradual changes over millions of years as a result of the action of selection, de Vries was a saltationist. Speciation, according to de Vries, was often immediate. It's important to bear in mind that de Vries' understanding of variation and mutation was very different to the modern concepts. He held that there were two types of variation: First, individual or fluctuating variation, the small variations we find in any population, such as that one person is slightly higher than another, or one group of people have slightly higher average height than another group of people. These variations are due to the action of the environment and do not have a genetic basis. Second, discontinuous variation, which involves radical, large-scale changes. This is what de Vries meant by "mutation". New species arise by mutation in this sense. Schindewolf's slogan sums it up rather nicely: "the first bird hatched from a reptile's egg". De Vries wasn't quite this extreme, but you get the general point. The origin of new species does not occur by selection.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 2, 2017 14:50:00 GMT
It doesn't need to. Genetic mutation supplies the random variation. Lol If you really think that's funny, it reveals your complete ignorance on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 2, 2017 14:57:38 GMT
Natural selection is not supposed to explain the origins of life. So no, it would be a stupid point that assumes he doesn't know what the theory of natural selection actually is. De Vries adds further: "And if we do not know what explains its arrival, then we do not understand the very origins of life’s diversity.”Are you talking about (or your understanding of what De Vries is talking about) the divergence of species over time or abiogenesis? In my earlier comments I've assumed the former, and this latest quote further suggests that.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 2, 2017 16:45:33 GMT
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. I never claimed it did. Not sure what point you're trying to make. It's a vague swipe at the God of the Gaps device. You only see it obliquely approached these days.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 2, 2017 16:50:10 GMT
Perfectly valid. Natural selection neither explains nor addresses the "arrival" of life.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 16:56:23 GMT
no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? This is not just about that quote, but scientists say dumb things, believe idiotic things, etc. left and right, not just in arenas that are outside of their professional academic purview, but sometimes even when we're talking about the field they specialize in. The fact that someone went to school and received graduate degrees, the fact that they're well-respected, etc. is no guard against this, and I can only imagine that anyone who believes otherwise either (a) has little higher educational experience themselves, and/or (b) has little experience with a variety of people who have advanced degrees and are well-respected, and/or (c) is an idiot themselves when it comes to some things. You don't get all of the dumb taken out of you, all of the blind spots, etc., just because you went to school for eight years or whatever, just because you're charismatic and you socialize well, etc. I have multiple graduate degrees myself. That's not because I'm a genius or any smarter than any average person. And plenty of people around here will attest to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 2, 2017 17:05:10 GMT
Anyway, arguing about evolution is completely irrelevant from a religious apologetics standpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 17:40:34 GMT
It doesn't need to. Genetic mutation supplies the random variation. Genetic mutation? Is that like divine intervention? Yes, exactly like that. Only without the divinity. And the intervention.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 2, 2017 19:24:38 GMT
I don't think Cody has understood the context of the quote. Current evolutionary theory is based on Random Mutation and natural Selection (plus other factors) Darwin - Natural Selection De Vries - Random Mutation De Vries wasn't contradicting Darwin's work, he was adding to it. He even coined the term mutation and his most famous work is - Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation, his theory was that mutations provided the variation for natural selection to work on. I'm not really sure why a creationist would quote an of De Vries' work. I agree that de Vries was no creationist, but his theory was a competitor to Darwin's. Whereas Darwin held that new species arise by gradual changes over millions of years as a result of the action of selection, de Vries was a saltationist. Speciation, according to de Vries, was often immediate. It's important to bear in mind that de Vries' understanding of variation and mutation was very different to the modern concepts. He held that there were two types of variation: First, individual or fluctuating variation, the small variations we find in any population, such as that one person is slightly higher than another, or one group of people have slightly higher average height than another group of people. These variations are due to the action of the environment and do not have a genetic basis. Second, discontinuous variation, which involves radical, large-scale changes. This is what de Vries meant by "mutation". New species arise by mutation in this sense. Schindewolf's slogan sums it up rather nicely: "the first bird hatched from a reptile's egg". De Vries wasn't quite this extreme, but you get the general point. The origin of new species does not occur by selection. I'm very aware that De Vries didn't understand what a mutation is in the way that we do now, although he was aware of Thomas Hunt Morgan's work, but I disagree that his work was in direct competition to Darwin's. He understood that it complemented it, which is presumably why he ended his work with the quote about natural selection. Why would he believe that his 'mutation theory' contradicted the principle of natural selection? He understood the relationship between 'fluctuations' and natural selection. For instance Darwin discovered the great principle which rules the evolution of organisms. It is the principle of natural selection. It is the sifting out of all organisms of minor worth through the struggle for life. It is only a sieve, and not a force of nature, not a direct cause of improvement, as many of Darwin's adversaries, and unfortunately many of his followers also, have so often asserted.
Whatever, Cody certainly doesn't understand the context of the quote.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jun 2, 2017 20:56:42 GMT
I agree that de Vries was no creationist, but his theory was a competitor to Darwin's. Whereas Darwin held that new species arise by gradual changes over millions of years as a result of the action of selection, de Vries was a saltationist. Speciation, according to de Vries, was often immediate. It's important to bear in mind that de Vries' understanding of variation and mutation was very different to the modern concepts. He held that there were two types of variation: First, individual or fluctuating variation, the small variations we find in any population, such as that one person is slightly higher than another, or one group of people have slightly higher average height than another group of people. These variations are due to the action of the environment and do not have a genetic basis. Second, discontinuous variation, which involves radical, large-scale changes. This is what de Vries meant by "mutation". New species arise by mutation in this sense. Schindewolf's slogan sums it up rather nicely: "the first bird hatched from a reptile's egg". De Vries wasn't quite this extreme, but you get the general point. The origin of new species does not occur by selection. I'm very aware that De Vries didn't understand what a mutation is in the way that we do now, although he was aware of Thomas Hunt Morgan's work, but I disagree that his work was in direct competition to Darwin's. He understood that it complemented it, which is presumably why he ended his work with the quote about natural selection. Why would he believe that his 'mutation theory' contradicted the principle of natural selection? He understood the relationship between 'fluctuations' and natural selection. For instance Darwin discovered the great principle which rules the evolution of organisms. It is the principle of natural selection. It is the sifting out of all organisms of minor worth through the struggle for life. It is only a sieve, and not a force of nature, not a direct cause of improvement, as many of Darwin's adversaries, and unfortunately many of his followers also, have so often asserted.
Whatever, Cody certainly doesn't understand the context of the quote. I'm not really sure how to answer the question in bold, since I already explained why in the post that you're responding to. De Vries didn't deny that natural selection occurred. But he did deny - and this clearly contradicts Darwin - that natural selection is responsible for the emergence of new species. To caricature his views: you don't get from a reptile to a bird by millions of years of gradual changes resulting from the action of selection on small variations. You get there by a sudden, massive jump. Now, once you have two very different forms, selection can act to preserve one and eliminate the other. Indeed, the vast majority of the mutation events will be deleterious, and the mutated organisms will not survive. So, as is stated in the original quote in this thread, selection plays a role in the survival of certain forms, but not in their emergence. This is also what he's getting at in your quote describing selection as "only a sieve". If you don't want to take my word for it, here's Ernst Mayr, from The Growth of Biological Thought, pg 546: "[de Vries's] theory of evolution thus was based on the assumptions (1) that continuous, individual variation is irrelevant, as far as evolution is concerned, (2) that natural selection is inconsequential, and (3) that all evolutionary change is due to sudden, large mutations and, furthermore, that species have mutable and immutable periods." Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism pg 183: "Hugo de Vries's mutation theory ... postulate[d] the sudden creation of new species without reference to selection." Much of chapter 8 of Bowler's book is devoted to an examination of de Vries's theory as an alternative to Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould, in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory pg 425, describes the "key claim" of de Vries's theory as "that new species arise suddenly by a distinct and special kind of saltational variation (called mutation), while ordinary, imperceptible, omnipresent Darwinian variability cannot force evolutionary novelties." On the same page, Gould judges de Vries's theory to be "the greatest challenge to Darwinism from the early 20th century". De Vries's own statements sometimes muddy things a little because he held Darwin in very high regard, and he sometimes claimed to be providing only a minor development of Darwin's theory, rather than a substantial alternative. I don't think any historian accepts this characterization. What is without question is that de Vries rejected many of the central claims of Darwinism, most notably that species and their traits arise primarily due to natural selection and that evolutionary change is gradual. Any history of evolutionary thought will confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 3, 2017 3:00:00 GMT
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 3, 2017 8:02:18 GMT
I'm very aware that De Vries didn't understand what a mutation is in the way that we do now, although he was aware of Thomas Hunt Morgan's work, but I disagree that his work was in direct competition to Darwin's. He understood that it complemented it, which is presumably why he ended his work with the quote about natural selection. Why would he believe that his 'mutation theory' contradicted the principle of natural selection? He understood the relationship between 'fluctuations' and natural selection. For instance Darwin discovered the great principle which rules the evolution of organisms. It is the principle of natural selection. It is the sifting out of all organisms of minor worth through the struggle for life. It is only a sieve, and not a force of nature, not a direct cause of improvement, as many of Darwin's adversaries, and unfortunately many of his followers also, have so often asserted.
Whatever, Cody certainly doesn't understand the context of the quote. I'm not really sure how to answer the question in bold, since I already explained why in the post that you're responding to. Except De Vries himself stated that his theory didn't contradict Darwin's theory of natural selection and he goes on to discuss how other biologists, including Wallace, defined Darwin's views too narrowly. Why don't you quote De Vries himself, surely he knew his own mind better than other biologist's interpretation of what he meant? www.gutenberg.org/files/7234/7234-h/7234-h.htmIt's a fairly pointless argument given that their work underpins current evolutionary theory.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 3, 2017 8:16:22 GMT
It doesn't need to. Genetic mutation supplies the random variation. I believe in evolution of course. But your statement does not refute the OP's premise. In fact, genetic mutation is the weakest plank of the theory of evolution. It's funny because it's De Vries who came up with 'mutational theory', he obviously had a good idea how the 'arrival of the fittest' happens. Why would you think genetic mutation is the weakest plank of evolutionary theory?
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Jun 3, 2017 15:22:01 GMT
I'm not really sure how to answer the question in bold, since I already explained why in the post that you're responding to. Except De Vries himself stated that his theory didn't contradict Darwin's theory of natural selection and he goes on to discuss how other biologists, including Wallace, defined Darwin's views too narrowly. Why don't you quote De Vries himself, surely he knew his own mind better than other biologist's interpretation of what he meant? www.gutenberg.org/files/7234/7234-h/7234-h.htmIt's a fairly pointless argument given that their work underpins current evolutionary theory. Maybe you consider it a pointless argument. I don't consider it pointless because I'm interested in the history of biology. There are many things we might have in mind by "Darwin's theory of natural selection", "Darwinism", etc. De Vries liked to call himself a Darwinian because he had high regard for Darwin, and they did agree on many points (though I think de Vries sometimes exaggerated the points of agreement). He also accepted a role for natural selection, as I've explained. But the fact remains that he denied central claims of Darwin's theory. His theory was considered a competitor to Darwin's at the time and is still considered such by historians today. I think I've provided perfectly adequate support for this, but if you want de Vries's own words: The Mutation Theory, vol 1pg 3 "... species have arisen from one another by a discontinuous, as opposed to continuous, process. Each new unit, forming a fresh step in this process, sharply and completely separates the new form as an independent species from that from which it sprang. The new species appears all at once; it originates from the parent species without any visible preparation, and without any obvious series of transitional forms." pg 154 "Many mistakes may in the future be avoided if a clear distinction is drawn between mutability and variability in the ordinary sense. The variability exhibited by man is of the fluctuating kind: whereas species arise by mutation. The two phenomena are fundamentally different. The assumption that human variability bears any relation to the variation which has or is supposed to have caused the origin of species is to my mind absolutely unjustified." Species and Varietiespg vii "The current belief assumes that species are slowly changed into new types. In contradiction to this conception the mutation theory assumes that new species and varieties are produced from existing forms by sudden leaps." pg 29 "One of the greatest objections to the Darwinian theory of descent arose from the length of time it would require, if all evolution was to be explained on the theory of slow and nearly invisible changes. This difficulty is at once met and fully surmounted by the hypothesis of periodical but sudden and quite noticeable steps. ... I shall try to prove that sudden mutation is the normal way in which nature produces new species and new varieties." pg 557 "Formulating the laws of mutability for the evening-primroses we therefore assume that they hold good for numerous other corresponding cases. I. The first law is, that new elementary species appear suddenly, without intermediate steps. ... the mutants, that constitute the first representatives of their race, exhibit all the attributes of the new type in full display at once. No series of generations, no selection, no struggle for existence are needed to reach this end." These statements very clearly contradict central claims of Darwin's theory.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 3, 2017 18:10:04 GMT
I believe in evolution of course. But your statement does not refute the OP's premise. In fact, genetic mutation is the weakest plank of the theory of evolution. It's funny because it's De Vries who came up with 'mutational theory', he obviously had a good idea how the 'arrival of the fittest' happens. Why would you think genetic mutation is the weakest plank of evolutionary theory? Indeed: genetic mutation is very easily observed, with several causes (radiation, chemical hazards, etc), and there are many documented mutations, many of which have names.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 3, 2017 21:31:19 GMT
"As sovereigns are anointed by the priesthood, so pigs to lead the populace are greased good." -Judibras
|
|