I believe creationism is wrong and that evolution is correct, but my friend claims that there is no falsifiable evidence for survival of the fittest, is this true?

Depends on what you call "fittest".

He didn't really go into detail, he just said "survival of the fittest cannot be observed and therefore has no falsifiable evidence" and then promptly changed the subject.

"survival of the fittest" is just another way of saying evolution by natural selection, which has been proven. "What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not tautologous(non-falsifible). It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified."

[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-06-2006).]

1. This was probably more fitted in 'Mad Scientists'.

2. Like hespeaks said, "Survival of the fittest" is just a general phrase that actually means "evolution by natural selection". It has been observed.

The only definition of "Fittest" that evolution would deal with would be that of "having good chances of production" - which does not necessarily mean a muscular/strong body as we usually take "fit" to mean.

3. As for how we could go about falsifying Natural Selection?

Well if you can find certain group of organisms with an unadvantageous mutation (this group of organisms would be from a specific species), that have a higher success rate in reproduction than other organisms of the same species that do not have the unadvantageous mutation, (the "success rate" determined through a substantial amount of time - i.e. not just days or weeks), then that would be a start.

Keep in mind that by "unadvantageous" I mean that there is absolutely no advantage from that mutation in any context. We currently see mutations that do not show any advantage in hunting pray for example, yet do show an advantage while finding a mate; those wouldn't be "unadvantageous".

It is definitely possible to falsify, the thing is that it is not intuitive. Common sense tells us to expect organisms with disadvantages in reproduction, to have have a lower success rate in reproduction - especially after a substantial amount of time of observation... and we do see that.

Yeah wrong forum.

Survival of the fittest is really a misnomer. Evolution could care less about survival, only reproduction. This is why many diseases that occur in old age are still around. Which also provides a way to falsification as rust pointed out. If genetic mutations that extremely hinder reproduction not only stick around but prosper in a population, it would bring into question natural selection.

Despite the title of his book, Darwin actually devoted little space to the origin of species, concentrating instead on how populations of individual species become better adapted to their local environments through natural selection.

Ernst Mayr of Harvard University has dissected the logic of Darwin's theory of natural selection into three inferences based on five facts:

Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would reproduce successfully.

Fact 2: Most populations are normally stable in size, except for seasonal fluctations.

Fact 3: Natural resources are limited.

Inference 1: Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation.

Fact 4: Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two individuals are exactly alike.

Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

Inference 2: Survival in the struggle for existence is not random, but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. Those individuals whose inherited characteristics fit them best to their environment are likely to leave more offspring than less fit individuals.

Inference 3: This unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will lead to a gradual change in a population, with favorable characteristics accumulating over the generations.



[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 08-07-2006).]

Ah, thanks a lot for the info. I told my friend who wants creationism taught in school that there was no falsifiable evidence for an intelligent designer and that therefore creationism isn’t science, so he said there’s no falsifiable evidence for survival of the fittest. Thanks again for the information.

You can't prove anything if God exists. Because then there is always the posibility that he is fucking with us to test our faith or just because he likes fucking with us.

Anybody who wants creationism taught in schools should be shot.

now he's stated 'ok, how do you make an experiment to test a group of animals to see which are fittest, those that are fittest will survive, but who are the fittest animals?'

Your friend is stupid.

Sure, the process of "survival of the fittest" occurs over a long period of time, and it is only really a description of something which is common sense.

Human beings through tribal living and emmotional bonds have broken through the "natural" level of the survival of the fittest, however examine many cultures are there are still remains...the Inuit practice of leaving the elderly out "to die" when they could no longer easily be looked after, for example.

The ones who can maintain their standing in nature, with the most resources and the ability to co-exist in the natural environment will always survive better than those who don't.

This does also indirectly point to be troubles on the horizon for us y'ummans! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

I showed him your post and he said 'well there isn't an experiment that can prove it'.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

now he's stated 'ok, how do you make an experiment to test a group of animals to see which are fittest, those that are fittest will survive, but who are the fittest animals?'

Again, you need to explain to your friend that the only meaningful definition of "fittest" in evolution is that of having success in reproduction; evolution has less to do with surviving, and more to do with reproduction. I could be a veritable surviving-machine, having all the best mutations imaginable, but if I don't reproduce, so as to pass on these variations, then I'm essentially meaningless in evolution.

The experiment would be the same one we proposed to potentially falsify evolution.

Take a number of organisms and observe their success (or failure) in reproduction. We expect to see advantageous variations in these organisms having a positive effect on the chances of reproduction, and disadvantageous variations having a negative effect. If that's what we observe, then our observations are in line with natural selection and can say that the group with the highest success rate in reproduction is the most "fittest" (again, only within the limited context of what "fittest" would mean inside evolution). If we, however, don't observe this, then this puts natural selection into question.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-19-2006).]

Yeah, I don't think there's any convincing him. His reply to your post, Rust, is: 'how do you determin which variations are advantageous and which are not?' and 'well you can only have one variable in an experiment, otherwise it's unsound'

I wish he'd make an account himself instead of getting me to post his replies.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I showed him your post and he said 'well there isn't an experiment that can prove it'.

1. Science is more about disproving a theory, than it is about "proving" it. That's why falsification is so important in Science; and as we've shown in this thread, natural selection is definitely falsifiable.

Theories become successful when they've survived numerous attempts at proving it wrong, and it should go without saying that evolution has survived plenty.

2. The experiment described in this thread, about observing the reproduction of organism would certainly support evolution (or possibly falsify it if the results are not what we expect if natural selection were true).

3. The "experiment" doesn't have to be in a laboratory. We have a myriad of observations that support natural selection. One of the most famous ones, the Peppered Moths (where it was noted that the population of dark-colored moths was growing at a great pace during the Industrial Revolution while the population of bright-colored moths was lowering) has been reproduced countless times. We see that dark-color moths have a greater chance of survival in places where grime/pollution has accumulated (e.g. near an industrial complex) because they are less-visible than bright-colored moths.

That's Natural Selection at work. We have a population of moths, with a phenotypical difference (their color). We observe that one of them has a higher success rate in reproduction than the other due to the camouflage provided by its dark-color. That's natural selection.

Here's the abstract of an experiment dealing with this very same situation:

"(1)Some populations of moths are polymorphic, containing industrial melanic and non-melanic forms. The melanics are camouflaged from bird predators in grimy, smoke polluted areas and non-melanics are conspicuous. The reverse situation occurs in unpolluted countryside. The carbonaria melanic of the peppered moth Biston betularia is almost totally black and is controlled by a single dominant gene. It is dominant to insularia melanics the genes for which occur at the same locus. The non-melanic, typical form is recessive. (2) On Merseyside insularia is rare and there is a marked cline in the frequency of carbonaria. In Liverpool and North Wirral the population is 85-97% carbonaria. The proportion falls so that in rural areas of Wales 50 km to the south-west it makes up less than 10% of the population. This situation provides a unique opportunity to study the dynamics of a cline. This can be done only by studying the situation in ecological terms. (3) A mark-release-recapture experiment estimated parameters of the population of male moths in a circular area (5 km radius) of Wirral during June 1968. Captures were made by assembling males to pheromone-producing females. Jolly's model gave estimates of nightly population size ranging from 119 to 594. Fisher and Ford's model (using Sheppard's modification to allow for removal of marked animals and emigration) gave estimates of 233-489. Daily survival rates estimated by both models were between 0.3 and 0.4. About 30 584 moths (assuming 1: 1 sex ratio) emerged from pupal cases during the flying season of the species in 1968. This is equivalent to 390/km2. (4) Marked moths, released in a wood at the centre of the area flew up to 5.8 km a night. The relationship between the numbers of recaptures and the distance flown was complex. This and the fact that males were flying beyond the boundaries of the area in a night made it impossible to estimate the average distance of their flight. A significant proportion (20%) of recaptures were made 2 km or more from the point of release. An apparent tendency for males to fly south and west was examined. Data, because of the great variability in performance of assembling traps, were not adequate to dismiss or confirm this suggestion. (5) Female Biston betularia seldom fly and are not exposed to non-selective mortality such as that due to predation by bats. The 24-h `survival' rates of carbonaria and typical females were estimated at seven places along the cline. This was done by glueing dead, previously frozen moths in life-like positions on tree trunks for 24 h where they were subject to predation by birds. Each day for many days a different randomly-selected series of eight trees was chosen from 100 and four of each morph were exposed. Birds were neither attracted to nor repelled from the moths by this procedure. The survival rates for carbonaria females decline with distance from Liverpool while those for the typical form increase."

- http://tinyurl.com/jvjb3

You can search for "industrial melanism" to find many more examples.

quote:how do you determin which variations are advantageous and which are not?' and 'well you can only have one variable in an experiment, otherwise it's unsound'

He pretty much answered his own question. You observe one variable at a time. See the Peppered Moth example above. We have observed plenty of times the differential reproductive success in moths. We can see how the survival/reproductive rate of moths varies from their location, given that their color may be advantageous in one environment (i.e. a dark-colored moth living in a grimy environment) and disadvantageous in another (i.e. a dark-colored moth living in a bright environment).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-19-2006).]

Your friend need to prove that he exists.

Ask your friend that if they teach creationism every time they mention a "higher power" they never say the word "God" but say "Like the pagan goddess, zeus, yawheh, allah, etc." their tune changes really fast when you mention another deity. it proves their full of shit and trying to instill their own religion in kids. They think that somehow disproving evolution proves their God is real, it just proves that they are easily threatened in their believes and have a false persecution complex.

That phrase is pretty much meaningless--no reputable scientist today would use it. At least, not with a straight face.

BTW, the phrase does not appear in any of Darwin's writings. It was misused when a rather inhumane philosophy known as social Darwinism came into vogue, which was mostly used to justify how rich folks screwed over poor folks.

Hey, I got a really really stupid question..

Does the topic sentence make sense?

Every time I read it, it sounds funny, and when I read it again like every hour or so, the first time I hear it it sounds like... the rhyme of rovin'. Like, instead of proove, it's prove.

I can't SEE anything wrong with it, but my brain's all bleh.

Rust, my friend, Max's reply:

yeah, but how do we determine which should survive and which should not?

the survivors will be the fittest, and the fittest will be those who survive.

Observational evidence is not the same as an experiment. An experiment has to be easily repeatable.

Correlations in statistics are not enough for evidence, they do not show cause and effect. Could be a coincidence, or both caused by an unknown.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:



yeah, but how do we determine which should survive and which should not?

Huh? We're not determining anything; we don't determine who survives or who doesn't.

It's a test which involves observing which organism has the most success. That's it.

quote:

the survivors will be the fittest, and the fittest will be those who survive.

Exactly. What's the problem?

quote:

Observational evidence is not the same as an experiment. An experiment has to be easily repeatable.

1. An experiment doesn't have to be easily repeatable. That's false. Of course, that's a favorable quality of an experiment, but it's not necessary; the mere fact that what is "easy" is pretty much entirely subjective and dependant on resources available should be enough to show how "easily repeatable" is not a requirement. We do have to be able to do it, of course, but whether it's easy or not is another matter.

In any case, this experiment is doable, actually pretty easy and has been repeated numerous times in the past. His point is moot.

2. This is much more than just mere observation. We've both observed this happen in nature, and observed it happen in experiments, and in innumerable cases.

quote:

Correlations in statistics are not enough for evidence, they do not show cause and effect. Could be a coincidence, or both caused by an unknown.[/i]

1. Like I said, in Science a theory is upheld every time it survives an attempt to falsify it and less when the theory is supported by evidence. Even if we take this argument as valid, which it is not, it is still meaningless.

2. This is not just a "correlation". This is the result of an experimental study from which we are definitely able to reach a conclusion. That's pretty much the definition of an experimental study!

3. This is not just one study; this has been the result of countless other studies done on different species, with different parameters, at different times and with different people. All of them have shown a differential reproductive success in the populations studied, which confirms natural selection.

If he has a study that has resulted in the conclusion that natural selection is not true, then he should provide it. Until then, his objections are unreasonable and silly to say the least.

One question: What does he believe occurs when two organisms, one with more advantageous traits than the other, compete with each other? I doubt he believes that the one with the disadvantage will win, on average...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-19-2006).]

His response:

we have to determine who are fittest otherwise there is no experiment.

the problem is circular logic

it's not survival of the fittest anymore; it's survival of the most popular.

And i fucking hate the world for it.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

He didn't really go into detail, he just said "survival of the fittest cannot be observed and therefore has no falsifiable evidence" and then promptly changed the subject.

your friend is a fucktard who thinks he's smarter than you. next time he tries to change the subject remind him of who started the conversation.

quote:Originally posted by One_way_mirror:

your friend is a fucktard who thinks he's smarter than you. next time he tries to change the subject remind him of who started the conversation.

That really does get on my nerves. He reads wikipedia and watches Fox News (which is where he gets all of his political views). Every time we start a conversation, I just know that he’s looking up his arguments on wikipedia or Fox or Bill O’Reilly’s website and acting as though they are his, and every time I start to prove him wrong he just goes ‘hmm’ and changes the topic. He does have a tendency to think he’s smarter than everyone else, especially those ‘dope smoking liberal commies’.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

His response:

we have to determine who are fittest otherwise there is no experiment.

the problem is circular logic

1. If we were to determine the outcome, then there would be absolutely no experiment! It makes absolutely no sense for use to determine the outcome, because that would then fail to be an experiment about natural selection.

We must observe what the effects of mutations are, and how the reproduction of these organisms with the verying mutations. Like the moth, a dark color will serve as camoflage, so we expect it to be an advantage. That's exactly what has happened, which means that natural selection held true.

2. This is not circular logic at all.

This is only a tautology if we think of it in terms of "survival of the fittest", which, as we have been explaining through out this thread, is not an accurate representation of evolution. Evolution says that variations end up in "differential reproductive success" among the organisms, and that's not a tautology.

The experiment we've given is not a tautology in the least, it is a way tho examine the outcome of mutations. If we see mutations that greatly hinder chances to reproduce, prosper through out generations, then that would put natural selection in question. Of course, we intutively expect disadvantages to hurt chances in reproduction, not help them, but that does not make natural selection a tautology. A tautology cannot be proven false, and this certainly can: if disadvantageous mutations prosper, natural selection is proven false (or at least, put in question).

from your email i think you and them don't understand what a scientific experiment is, let me explain.

what scientists do is first you outline the experiment say what you believe the outcome will be. Then you do the experiment in order to prove that the experiment you suggested was correct

edit - you have to make a prediction, the closer the actual is to the predection the more acurate the theory

I'm talking to him on MSN right now.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-20-2006).]

I understand that perfectly. We observe the heredity of certain traits among organisms as opposed to other traits, in nature. We form the hypothesis of Natural Selection to explain this phenomenon; which says that this is due to a differential reproductive success among the organisms which leads to certain traits being passed on in a greater fashion. We then test it through experiments, similar to the one we've been mentioning through out this whole thread.

I know the scientific method quite well, so there is no need for a lesson.

When I said that we don't choose the outcome, I did not mean that we do not make a hypothesis and base predictions on it through out the process; I meant that we do not determine the outcome. We observe what happens and that's it; we do not determine/force which one will survive. I said that because it seemed to me that that was what he was saying.

To go back to the example of the moths: we have the theory of Natural Selection so we test it through an experiment involving moths of different color. We expect to see the dark-colored moths to have a greater chance of reproduction than the light-colored months, in grimy/dark/ environments. We test this, and the outcome is precisely that. Natural Selection is then supported by the experiment. Could the experiment have a different outcome? Yes, the bright-colored moths could have had a greater amount of reproduction. It is therefore, not a tautology. It is merely no intuitive to believe that unfavorable traits will provide greater success than favorable ones, but that doesn't make it a tautology.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-20-2006).]

Wasn't the original claim that Natural selection isn't falsifiable? Now he wants evidence. Sounds like someone is coming up with excuses to not accept science, and doesn't want to do his own homework.

As Rust has pointed out, natural selection is a basic premise that is easily testable and falsifiable. Bacteria gaining resistance to antibiotics is an example of natural selection. Higher rates of sickle cell anemia in malaria zones is another.

It seems like a pretty simple concept. If an organism contains traits that can be passed on to its offspring then overtime 'good' traits should outweigh 'bad' traits as those with 'good' traits are able to produce more offspring.

Someone needs to tell the kid that 'survival of the fittest' isn't exactly the same as natural selection. It's more like Natural selection + it's subgroup (rarely mentioned) sexual selection.

You don't really need to look very far to find working examples and ongoing experiments to prove both:

1. Sexual selection

Kenyan chicks find tall guys really hot and have done for a long time. (this is a cultural statement, barring western influenced areas) Over the centuries, the tallest guys in the tribes get all the chicks, and the 'tall' genes are passed on. The short guys don't get any and don't pass on the short genes. Hence, the average tribal heght in kenya is well over 6'5". Short people became tall... wow http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)The same happens in many places, the brightest peacocks get all the peacock chicks and peacocks becacme bright. Sexual selection is everywhere and happening as we speak.

2. Natural selection is a bit harder to pick out happening in front of you but therre ARE a few examples. These, fortunately enough have been pointed out by the kind folks before this post.

Your friend seems to have trouble understanding the very basic theory, even in terms of elimination of genes. Whether or not creationism is true, natural and sexual selection are happening in front of you. The fact that your have your parents genes is proof enough of that.

@Rust

what i meant by determine the outcome is not forcing it to be so, but a prediction, if the prediction is wrong then the theory is wrong, or needs fine tuning. If the prediction is proved right but numerous experiments then we can say it is either correct or will suffice until a more detailed theory is thought up and proved correct.



If you let go of a pen in mid air what do you predict will happen? were you correct? if you were your theory about what happens to when something is dropped is correct. if you just observe it;s not a theory, it;s an 'i don't know what will happen, i will drop the pen to find out'. and from the observation you can generate a theory, and say what will happen if you do the exact same again.



and from that generate a constant, which could be use to determine what happens when any item is dropped.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

@Rust

[i]what i meant by determine the outcome is not forcing it to be so, but a prediction, if the prediction is wrong then the theory is wrong, or needs fine tuning. If the prediction is proved right but numerous experiments then we can say it is either correct or will suffice until a more detailed theory is thought up and proved correct.

Great, then we're in agreement. And since there have been a humongous amount of experiments made that confirm and validate predictions made by Natural Selection, we can safely say that it is correct. Like I said before, until you provide an experiment that has shown Natural Selection to be false, your objections are moot.

quote: "Fitness", in terms of evolution, simply means "best adapted to the environment". For example, if your environment contained a pack of hungry lions, yourself and a tortoise, the tortoise is a lot more likely to survive lion-attack than you are. You might be bigger, stronger, faster and brainier than the tortoise, but he's the one with retractable limbs and a hard, thick shell. Fitness does not refer to speed and strength, but the ability to live long enough to reproduce and pass on your genes to the next generation. (Further clarification on this)

As the environment changes, so to do the attributes that contribute to the fitness of a species. If the climate changes, or a food supply is lost, or a new predator comes along, then the fitness of the individual will be judged on how well it can cope with the new situation. It may be that fleetness of foot matters less, and thickness of fur matters more. Natural selection will either destroy the species or cause it to be changed over subsequent generations until it is "fit" once more.

Dangerous environments drive evolution (as mentioned above, crocodiles aren't in much danger from anything, which is why they haven't evolved greatly for a long time). Strong selective pressures cause a species to evolve rapidly. This is one of the reasons why hospitals are having trouble with anti-biotic resistant bacteria - if the drugs kill 99% of the bugs, that leaves the last 1% who are resistant to the drug. These are the ones that will create the next generation, naturally much more resistant to the same drugs. Some bacteria have even been found that actually feed on anti-biotics! From an evolutionary point of view, this is to be expected - it is inevitable.

Full page here. (http://tinyurl.com/dpoue)

Hope this clears stuff up.

Edit: You might want to show him the site I got that from, its "Evolution for creationists" and clears up alot of misconceptions.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:And since there have been a humongous amount of experiments made that confirm and validate predictions made by Natural Selection,

His reply:

no there haven't. only observational recordings

they haven't taken 10 animals, said which would live and which would die and thrown them all into a park. and if they did they would be hard pressed to determine correctly which would survive, if there was only one optimum configuration, regardless of location, there would only be one species

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

His reply:

no there haven't. only observational recordings

they haven't taken 10 animals, said which would live and which would die and thrown them all into a park. and if they did they would be hard pressed to determine correctly which would survive, if there was only one optimum configuration, regardless of location, there would only be one species



Thats because evolution takes millions of years. Once again coming from the site posted above:

quote:"So, according to evolutionary theory, species keep changing from one to another? Whoever heard of a fish giving birth to a frog? Whoever heard of an frog giving birth to a monkey? How ridiculous! What nonsense it is!"

Well, that certainly is nonsense, and that idea is only ever used by creationists who either don't understand what they're talking about, or just want to heap ridicule on it by misrepresenting it. No evolutionist would even think about suggesting such a stupid idea. To say that one species suddenly starts giving birth to new animals is to demonstrate ignorance about the theory of evolution (or worse, misrepresentation of easily-understood science).

However, it is true to say that a creature may give birth to something that is 0.0001% closer to being a truly different species. After a few million years, and thousands and thousands of generations, a new species may well have evolved (ie. one that is measurably different to it's ancestors, and could not breed with members of the original species).

Hopefully you don't need any more help, since I'm most likely done for the night, I'm sure you know how to use search engines and stumble.

Just in case though here are some links to evolution sites. (Hopefully fixed now)

http://tinyurl.com/47wsf http://tinyurl.com/dpoue http://www.swimbots.com/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ http://www.mega.nu:8080/gender.html http://tinyurl.com/lfm7z http://talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html http://tinyurl.com/805j http://www.evolushark.com/ http://www.talkdesign.org/ http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html http://www.hbes.com/ http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html http://www.ventrella.com/Darwin/darwin.html

I haven't looked at all of them, but they contain a LOT of information on evolution. Hopefully this will provide you with enough knowledge to refute the majority of arguements, and strawman attacks.

Knowledge really is power.

{edit}

I'd also like to add this awesome list of links (http://www.evolushark.com/?p=links)

{Edit2}

Totse software thought it would be cool to fuck up my links...



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

His reply:

[i]no there haven't. only observational recordings



Yes there have. They have made predictions based on natural selection countless times in the past and will do so countless times in the future; that you claim they haven't only shows your ignorance on this topic.

In fact, the very experiment I linked to does this. It argues that the dark-color of the moths released would serve as a camouflage in dark/dirty environments; after conducting the experiment, that is exactly the case. A difference in reproductive success between the dark-colored moths and the bright-colored moths is noted (the dark-colored moths having a greater success in reproduction the closer they are to this "dark" enviornment), thus confirming their thoughts.

Moreover, like Beta said, another myriad of experiments have been done on bacteria as well! http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/28/6/491.pdf

--

You've claimed that Natural Selection is not falsifiable, and we've shown how it is; you argued how it was a tautology and we've shown how it is not. You're desperately changing the argument every time because you keep getting refuted every time. Frankly, I'm not going to spend any more time discussing this with someone who keeps making ridiculous claims that he doesn't bother substantiating, keeps ignoring the articles provided to him, e doesn't even bother registering to discuss this properly.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I believe creationism is wrong and that evolution is correct, but my friend claims that there is no falsifiable evidence for survival of the fittest, is this true?

He is correct. You cannot supply falsifiable evidence for a short path of basic reasoning.

well that moth thing wasn't an experiment, it was a observational one, i read up about it in biology

Right, in your biology class they taught you the same experiment I linked to here, which is only available through scientific journals and has material that would go right over your head... What a fucking stupid thing to say.

They might have mentioned the first Observations done by Edleston (i.e. the guy who first noticed natural selection acting on peppered moths due to their different colors and the enviorment change due to Industrialization) over a century ago, but they most certainly did not cover the thousands of experiments done afterwards.

What I linked to, and what I have been talking about ever since, is an experiment; one that supports Natural Selection.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

well that moth thing wasn't an experiment, it was a observational one, i read up about it in biology

What is an experiment without observation? Not much of anything I would think...

The def of experiment:

ex·per·i·ment Audio pronunciation of "experiment" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spr-mnt)

n.

1.

1. A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.



The moth experiment under that definition would be an experiment, would it not?

scientific method

n.

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Notice the "generally involving the observation of phenomena"

umm actually it's been proved on the galapagos islands as late as the 1980's... the beak sizes of the finches changed because of a volcanic eruption because certain seed sizes became very scarce.