Jump to content


Photo

The Myth Of Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2017 - 09:20 AM

The Myth of Natural selection.

Over the years the meaning of the term "natural selectttion" has changed. During Darwin's time it meant animals in the wild selected their own mates without intelligent intervention.

At any rate, the selection was always done by something alive. Today the conotation is that "natural selection" is a part of nature and an unconcious, non-iving decision making force. It's amazing hoow the concept
has channged meanaing aided by those that want to believe in evo.

One of the characteristics of life is that it can make decisions. So, in short what is called natural selection is actually life. Life makes choices and imaginary "natural selecttion" gets the crediit! Go figure!

Long ago before we evolved hunger pangs people were dying from starvation. They didn't know to eat. Then a mutation happened and people started getting hungry and so would eat. Those who got hunger pangs survived and the characterisric was selected for and spread trroughout the population!



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 04:39 AM

The Myth of Natural selection.

Over the years the meaning of the term "natural selectttion" has changed. During Darwin's time it meant animals in the wild selected their own mates without intelligent intervention.

At any rate, the selection was always done by something alive. Today the conotation is that "natural selection" is a part of nature and an unconcious, non-iving decision making force. It's amazing hoow the concept
has channged meanaing aided by those that want to believe in evo.

One of the characteristics of life is that it can make decisions. ...

.
With respect to the last sentence in the above quoted excerpt, on what basis do you make that assertion? In other words, what is your evidence that led to that statement?

#3 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 August 2017 - 03:15 PM

The Myth of Natural selection.Over the years the meaning of the term "natural selectttion" has changed. During Darwin's time it meant animals in the wild selected their own mates without intelligent intervention.At any rate, the selection was always done by something alive. Today the conotation is that "natural selection" is a part of nature and an unconcious, non-iving decision making force. It's amazing hoow the concepthas channged meanaing aided by those that want to believe in evo.One of the characteristics of life is that it can make decisions. ...

.With respect to the last sentence in the above quoted excerpt, on what basis do you make that assertion? In other words, what is your evidence that led to that statement?

"on what basis do you make that assertion? In other words, what is your evidence that led to that statement?"

LOL.. All of a sudden the evolutionist asks for evidence to support science fiction about "Long ago and far away" If only you were so demanding when it comes to your OWN propagandists for the Mindless Microbe to Microbiologist Myth of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna.. LOL

Here is an article (Things that show evolution is an actual fact)
Have you evwr seen more baseless assertions contrived from ZERO evidence in your life? Neither have I... But you are strangely quiet about THIS. I wonder why..? LOL


https://www.buzzfeed...X8Q#.gs7zZ5YaVq


"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that"

Richard Dawkins

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 August 2017 - 07:18 PM

Schea do

One of the characteristics of life is that it can make decisions.

With respect to the last sentence in the above quoted excerpt, on what basis do you make that assertion? In other words, what is your evidence that led to that statement?

I am alive and I select (make decisions) . Matter or things dead don't select.
 



#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 07:55 PM

Schea do

One of the characteristics of life is that it can make decisions.

With respect to the last sentence in the above quoted excerpt, on what basis do you make that assertion? In other words, what is your evidence that led to that statement?

I am alive and I select (make decisions) . Matter or things dead don't select.

.
No, you are not the "it" in the sentence.

#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 August 2017 - 07:59 PM

To help along that process, I’ve quoted from an article below that lists several more examples of the controversy. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but is meant to lead truly curious readers to do more reading themselves. For those of you who have already decided that there is no controversy, don’t waste your time reading any further. You’ll just get more upset.
. . .
highly credible scientists doubt the neo-Darwinian view that natural selection acting on random mutation was the driving force building the complexity of life. Lynn Margulis, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, explained that “neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism,” and admitted, “I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
. . .
The following year, leading biologist Eugene Koonin wrote that breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” or that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution” indicate “the modem synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.”
. . .
Another Nature paper reported that newly discovered genes “are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree,” since they “give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.”
. . .

Again, if you want to argue that there is no controversy, you are simply ignorant of what’s going on. Instead of trying to shout down any one who says there is a controversy, your time would be better spent spend studying the differing views on evolution so that you can truly understand the issues involved.
www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2015/02/20/is-there-any-scientific-controversy-over-darwinian-evolution-part-2/
  • Blitzking likes this

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:13 PM

What really drives evo are the intelligent scientists with their "just so" stories that they use to rescue evo from the garbage bin. Evo sxientists are so anti-intelligence. And yet they think they are so smart. lol



#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:27 PM

No, you are not the "it" in the sentence.

correct, but it's proven that the choices he makes in his life can affect the genetic expression of his children.

#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:25 AM

you know, i'm willing to lay odds that there has been harldy no, if any at all, evolution since the arrival of animal phyla.

from quora:
The first type or Class I transposons are retrotransposons. They are called so because they behave like the DNA of retroviruses. They are first transcribed by the cell to form RNA and then, this RNA is reverse transcribed by reverse transcriptase (often encoded by the transposon) to give DNA that is then integrated into a random position by enzymes called integrases (also encoded by the transposon). It can be clearly seen, that in this case, the original donor element remains intact. Hence, the transposable element gets replicated.
- quora

from phys.org:
The language used in the switches that turn genes on and off has remained the same across millions of years of evolution, according to a new study led by researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden.
- phys.org

not only hasn't the genetic code changed, but the epigenetic code hasn't either.

now comes the really interesting part:
Each gene has a regulatory region that contains the instructions controlling when and where the gene is expressed. These instructions are written in a language often referred to as the 'gene regulatory code'. This code is read by proteins called transcription factors that bind to specific 'DNA words' and either increase or decrease the expression of the associated gene.
. . .
"We observed that, in spite of more than 600 million years of evolution, almost all known DNA words found in humans and mice were recognised by fruit fly transcription factors", says Kazuhiro Nitta at the Department of Biosciences and Nutrition at Karolinska Institutet, first author of the study.
. . .
"The genome is like a book written in a foreign language, we know the letters but cannot understand why a human genome makes a human or the mouse genome a mouse", says Professor Jussi Taipale, who led the study at the Department of Biosciences and Nutrition. "Why some individuals have higher risk to develop common diseases such as heart disease or cancer has been even less understood."
. . .
In addition, binding specificities of human transcription factors were compared to those of the mouse. Surprisingly, no differences were found. According to the scientists, these results suggest that the basic machinery of gene expression is similar in humans and mice, and that the differences in size and shape are caused not by differences in transcription factor proteins, but by presence or absence of the specific sequences that bind to them.
- phys.org

so, what causes the difference among animals?
the above puts epigenetics and transposons exactly at center stage.
it's also apparent that these changes occur and is effected by the cell itself.

so, in my opinion, the body plans or phyla are indeed the durable units of evolution, and the differences within a specific phyla is due to epigenetics and transposons.

my question is, what is the significance of transposons encoding their own transcriptase?

we already know DNA has a code.
we just found out epigenetics has a code.
the encoding of transcriptase by transposons gives rise to the possibility of a transposon code.
my opinion is that they will also find a molecular code.

can ANYONE say this arose by a chance meeting of molecules?

so much for gradualism eh?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users