Peppered moths and evolution and Lippard's changing their spots

Kenneth Miller ^ | James Foard

[JMFoard]

Postscript: Creationists acknowledge natural selection, as I pointed out, it was a creationist concept long before evolutionists and Darwin fooled with it, but this does not introduce newe species, it only reduces the gene pool, and the natural selection did not create new species, by your own admission the dark colored ones could have migrated from somewhere else.

[sauropod]

Can't resist

[f.Christian]

Maybe you can help him---DH/evonaut!

[Karl_Lembke]

Postscript: Creationists acknowledge natural selection, as I pointed out, it was a creationist concept long before evolutionists and Darwin fooled with it, but this does not introduce newe species, it only reduces the gene pool, and the natural selection did not create new species, by your own admission the dark colored ones could have migrated from somewhere else.

Could you produce an article, before about 1870, discussing natural selection?

[Dominic Harr]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Enough 'micro' changes -- steps -- equal 'macro' changes -- the thousand miles.

If you make a large number of small changes to a thing, you end up with a very different thing than you started with.

A 'macro' change is a bunch of 'micro' changes.

[Karl_Lembke]

ADD TO LIST

[gore3000]

Could you produce an article, before about 1870, discussing natural selection?

The 'Origin of the Species' was published in 1859, the full name of it (never used anymore since it shows what kind of guy Darwin was) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

[gore3000]

Since you are an evolutionist (and any evolutionist is welcome to respond) perhaps you can elucidate a few things. The article accuses evolutionists of failing to define their terms. Could you help us here? Could you help us have an intelligent discussion and define:
1. evolution.
2. natural selection.
3. speciation.
I mean, the writer of the article must be absolutely wrong must he not? After all, evolution is supposedly science and scientist always define their terms very carefully and exactly.

[discostu]

PC threads not viscious enough for you? Had to go to the crevo's? That way lies madness. Good luck.

[Dominic Harr]

Since we're all 'evolutionists' -- you too! -- I'd be glad to do my best:

1. evolution -- the idea that species adapt to their changing environment by means of natural selection.

2. natural selection -- the idea that the environment 'selects' which progeny of a species will live and which will die.

3. speciation -- the idea that after enough time, and enough small changes due to natural selection, a species will have changed enough from it's starting point to be considered a different species.

In laymens terms, there you go.

Now, wich of those do you disagree with?

[Dominic Harr]

Thanks, I'm sick, I know it.

But this is how I have fun.

As you may have noticed, I absolutely love finding blind partisans who have locked themselves into an impossible position and then trying to politely discuss the facts with them. As I do on a few of the PC threads.

It's my version of mental excersize.

[discostu]

Politely discuss the facts?! Not on crevo threads. I hung on these in the early days, but the 3 way clash of unyielding sacred cows was too much for me. 2 way battles I can handle, 3 way is just too much.

[Dominic Harr]

Not on crevo threads.

Nor on the tech threads, either!

Actually, that is part of the fun, for me. I love when the other side ignores obvious truths, it energizes me and leaves me with an unstoppable weapon. Dealing with a YEC is really no different than dealing with an MS-only tech worker. Both are blind partisans.

I consider it a challenge to try and keep my cool with these folks, and the greatest challenge is to try and keep focused.

As I said, I'm desperately sick. This is my version of therapy.

[cebadams]

So is MS Windows an example of:

a. evolution,
b. natural selection, or
c. speciation.

[Dominic Harr]

Yes, actually, I would say so.

As an analogy, yes.

Windows has 'evolved', and been 'selected' by the environment. The 'speciation' is the Windows versions -- Win1.0/2.0/3.1/NT/95/98/2k/XP (and whichever ones I left out).

That's a good example of evolution in a system, in fact.

And the 'micro' changes (the millions of code changes during development of each 'version') eventually add up to 'macro' changes (new versions of Windows).

[discostu]

Speciation. First you have CPM then you get IBM-DOS then you get MS-DOS then you get the original Windows which is really just a shell extension to DOS and finally it moves out to being it's own breed of OS, though it still carries the CPM core in there (you can still run .com files, those are the legacy of CPM), that carrying of the baggage keeps it a subspecies rather than letting it become it's own race. Supposedly Longhorn will drop all downward compatibility and thus be it's own race. But given that XP still runs DOS stuff (and well, better than 98 did in my experience) I'm betting that Longhorn will be another species but will still be able to do DOS and Windows stuff.

[cebadams]

Interesting!!

Your analogy works from the standpoint of a given species; i.e., micro changes to Windows just gives you more versions of Windows (some better, some worse). And since Windows was built on top of CPM --> MSDOS the analolgy is the same. Look inside Windows XP and you'll find remnants of MSDOS. You started with a disk operating system and you end with a disk operating system.

But for evolution to work across families (i.e., transending operating systems) you have to be able to make micro changes to a disk operating system and end up with something completely different -- for instance, a vacuum cleaner.

And don't forget that these micro changes that have been made to Windows were all planned changes -- i.e., by design. Random code changes would not have resulted in new versions of Windows.

So your analogy implies that natural selection works within a family but only if there is intelligent design.

[discostu]

I wouldn't say you'd have to wind up with a vacuum cleaner, at least not after a mere 20 years. You'd have to end up with an OS that bore no functional resemblance to the original ie it would not be able to run stuff written for the original and wouldn't have the original interface burried in it.

As for design vs randomness two things: 1 you obviously never worked in the software industry ;) 2 remember evolutionary changes aren't necessarily random, while we're not sure why an individual change happens we do know that if that change isn't "good" the changed critter won't live long enough to breed and perpetuate it's change.

The anology was going the other way. Can't speak for Dominic but for me I wasn't using the "evolution" of Windows to prove the evolution of species, it was merely answering a hypothetical question of which element of secies evolution does this one particular software evolution more closely ressemble.

But you do bring up an important point. Nothing about evolutionary theory precludes the existence of God. Some evolutionary scientist (like some anybody else with an axe to grind) will claim it does, but most don't even touch the issue. Darwin himself thought it proved the existence of God the Creator because, according to him, only God could create a system so perfect that it could overcome any immaginable obstacle.

[Dominic Harr]

So your analogy implies that natural selection works within a family but only if there is intelligent design.

You mean only if there is a system that makes the selection. It could be an intelligent designer, as in the case of software. Or it could be the system of natural selection, in which the environment does the 'selecting'.

Of course, there's no reason a 'god' couldn't manipulate the environment to create the species he/she/it wanted. That's possible.

And as for computerized vacuum cleaners -- ironically, that's the newest, biggest push in the software industry. 'Smart' appliances. So far, the environment hasn't selected any of the products for success. But software developers are desperately looking for ways to use imbedded systems in household appliances!!

If the environment were to 'select' a computerized vacuum cleaner, the industry would build it today.

[cebadams]

You mean only if there is a system that makes the selection. It could be an intelligent designer, as in the case of software. Or it could be the system of natural selection, in which the environment does the 'selecting'.

Or it could be the system of un-natural selection, in which mega bucks and market dominance are leveraged to favor certain selections. Evolution doesn't necessarily result in the "best" selection.