Jump to content


Photo

Is Natural Selection A Mechanism Of Evolution?

Evolution Refuted

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 20 November 2017 - 10:29 PM

It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any novelties in an organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, but conserves the variants which fit the environment. In fact, natural selection does not help organisms adapt fast enough in certain environments and for this reason they become extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak and passive process.
 

Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which help an organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants (mutated variants) which lower survival. It simply halts and discards by the filtering process. As a result, natural selection does not produce any real novelties because it can only act on the genetic potentialities that are implicit in the DNA structure of a particular species and preserves the good and discards the bad. Natural selection is a conservative process and works to preserve the status quo in a population.

 

The process of natural selection fits well with the creationist framework of conservation of biological systems. Since we know that God had a purpose for each created kind, we would expect that He would institute a mechanism which would not only secure genetic integrity, but would also help biological systems to survive.

 

I look forward to your comments. God bless!

 

  

Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the organism which also helps with survival.   It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative
mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help
organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any
novalties in the organism, but simply helps it to survive in that environment. Close observation
indicates that natural selection does not help the organism fast enough to survive and in some
instances the organism(s) goes extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak process of adaptation.
Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which
help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the
organism which also helps with survival.It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative
mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help
organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any
novalties in the organism, but simply helps it to survive in that environment. Close observation
indicates that natural selection does not help the organism fast enough to survive and in some
instances the organism(s) goes extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak process of adaptation.
Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which
help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the
organism which also helps with survival.It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative
mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help
organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any
novalties in the organism, but simply helps it to survive in that environment. Close observation
indicates that natural selection does not help the organism fast enough to survive and in some
instances the organism(s) goes extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak process of adaptation.
Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which
help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the
organism which also helps with survival.It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative
mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help
organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any
novalties in the organism, but simply helps it to survive in that environment. Close observation
indicates that natural selection does not help the organism fast enough to survive and in some
instances the organism(s) goes extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak process of adaptation.
Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which
help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the
organism which also helps with survival.


#2 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 21 November 2017 - 03:28 AM

Hello Lion of Judah!! Welcome!   :banana_vacation:

 

I dont think I can add anything to your very comprehensive

post, But I am sure there are a few Accidentalists who will

give it a go.. ( Adding to their demise )

 

Regards Jim Thinnsen AKA Peacharoo / Blitzking



#3 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 November 2017 - 09:38 AM

according to lynch in his paper, there is no evidence that natural selection causes or encourages complexity.

IOW, the increasing complexity of life CANNOT be explained by natural selection.



#4 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 21 November 2017 - 01:01 PM

It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative mechanisms driving evolution.

Can you quote some prominent evolutionists on this subject? I'd agree that natural selection is a mechanism within evolution, but I wouldn't describe it as "creative".

However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any novelties in an organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, but conserves the variants which fit the environment.

Where are these variants coming from for natural selection to select?

In fact, natural selection does not help organisms adapt fast enough in certain environments and for this reason they become extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak and passive process.

"Weak" and "passive" relative to what?
 

The process of natural selection fits well with the creationist framework of conservation of biological systems. Since we know that God had a purpose for each created kind, we would expect that He would institute a mechanism which would not only secure genetic integrity, but would also help biological systems to survive.

If there's a purpose for everything, wouldn't you expect him not to let things go extinct?

#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 21 November 2017 - 04:20 PM

It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative mechanisms driving evolution.

Can you quote some prominent evolutionists on this subject? I'd agree that natural selection is a mechanism within evolution, but I wouldn't describe it as "creative".

However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any novelties in an organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, but conserves the variants which fit the environment.

Where are these variants coming from for natural selection to select?

In fact, natural selection does not help organisms adapt fast enough in certain environments and for this reason they become extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak and passive process.

"Weak" and "passive" relative to what? 

The process of natural selection fits well with the creationist framework of conservation of biological systems. Since we know that God had a purpose for each created kind, we would expect that He would institute a mechanism which would not only secure genetic integrity, but would also help biological systems to survive.

If there's a purpose for everything, wouldn't you expect him not to let things go extinct?


"I'd agree that natural selection is a mechanism within evolution, but I wouldn't describe it as "creative".


So you dont think that a Microbe turning into a Microbiologist is "Creative" do you? LOL. You DO know how the story goes right?

#6 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 21 November 2017 - 06:40 PM

Hello Lion of Judah!! Welcome!   :banana_vacation:

 

I dont think I can add anything to your very comprehensive

post, But I am sure there are a few Accidentalists who will

give it a go.. ( Adding to their demise )

 

Regards Jim Thinnsen AKA Peacharoo / Blitzking

Blitzing - Thank you for the warm welcome!



#7 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 21 November 2017 - 08:06 PM

"Can you quote some prominent evolutionists on this subject? I'd agree that natural selection is a mechanism within evolution, but I wouldn't describe it as "creative"."

 

Popoi - I would suggest reading the article titled "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer" by Francisco J. Ayala. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701072104. In this article he uses the term "create" to describe the designing power of natural selection. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins also alludes to natural selection having creative powers. This concept is quite old and can be found even in the writings of Darwin in the "Origins."

 

I do not agree that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. As I have indicated in my original post, the mechanism fits better within a creationist framework of biological systems. 

 

"Where are these variants coming from for natural selection to select?"

 

All organisms experience some mutational changes. A mutational change is not a normal variational recombination of the DNA code. When this occurs, the resultant offspring is weaker and is selected out by natural selection. The filtering process culls out mutations. 

 

""Weak" and "passive" relative to what?"

 

Natural selection is too weak to help an organism adapt in an environment that is too hostile for its survival. Think of natural selection as a genetic gatekeeper. When normal genes come up to the gate, the gatekeeper allows them through, but when a mutated gene comes up to the gate, the gatekeeper does not let it through. The gatekeeper says either "yes" or "no." This is a passive task. 

 

"If there's a purpose for everything, wouldn't you expect him not to let things go extinct?"

 

This requires a historical answer. The reason that things die is because sin is present in the world. At the beginning, the first man Adam sinned and as a result sin entered the world. Nothing is spared from death at this time. 

 

Best wishes Popoi. 

 



#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 21 November 2017 - 09:07 PM

It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative mechanisms driving evolution.

Can you quote some prominent evolutionists on this subject? I'd agree that natural selection is a mechanism within evolution, but I wouldn't describe it as "creative".

However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any novelties in an organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, but conserves the variants which fit the environment.

Where are these variants coming from for natural selection to select?

In fact, natural selection does not help organisms adapt fast enough in certain environments and for this reason they become extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak and passive process.

"Weak" and "passive" relative to what? 

The process of natural selection fits well with the creationist framework of conservation of biological systems. Since we know that God had a purpose for each created kind, we would expect that He would institute a mechanism which would not only secure genetic integrity, but would also help biological systems to survive.

If there's a purpose for everything, wouldn't you expect him not to let things go extinct?


"If there's a purpose for everything, wouldn't you expect him not to let things go extinct?"

NO..

Why would you assume that?

We are looking at things from a very lowly perspective of a soul that was created and allowed to live in a temporary tent in order to make a choice... To accept God and have a relationship with him in Spirit and in Truth or Reject him (Which you have) and live forever apart from God (As per your wishes) There have probably been over 100 Billion of us created down through the ages.. Everything else is window dressing... Sooner or later ALL flesh will cease to exist.. As Christians we are given special insight into some of God's ways.. It changes our perspective on Everything..

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" Matt 24

#9 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 21 November 2017 - 09:13 PM

Popoi - I would suggest reading the article titled "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer" by Francisco J. Ayala. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701072104. In this article he uses the term "create" to describe the designing power of natural selection.

Fair enough, this does actually use the word “create” in association with natural selection. The problem is that it also makes statements like this:

Natural selection is much more than a “purifying” process, for it is able to generate novelty by increasing the probability of otherwise extremely improbable genetic combinations. Natural selection in combination with mutation becomes, in this respect, a creative process.

Which make it clear that natural selection and mutation are both part of that creative process, and sheds some light on what is meant by “create”. Not literally that natural selection is specifically creating the new variants, but that the end result of the process is a new thing.

 Just so it’s clear, my objection is that you’re presenting natural selection outside of the context of evolution, when I’m fairly certain that all of the prominent evolutionists you’re thinking of were talking about natural selection operating alongside mutation as creative.

 

All organisms experience some mutational changes. A mutational change is not a normal variational recombination of the DNA code. When this occurs, the resultant offspring is weaker and is selected out by natural selection. The filtering process culls out mutations.

Not always.
 

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Natural selection is too weak to help an organism adapt in an environment that is too hostile for its survival.

Sure, but not every environment is that hostile. Describing natural selection as “weak” doesn’t actually mean anything without the context of what other forces are also in the mix.
 

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]This requires a historical answer. The reason that things die is because sin is present in the world. At the beginning, the first man Adam sinned and as a result sin entered the world. Nothing is spared from death at this time.

If nothing died, why would you expect there to be a built in mechanism to help things survive?

#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:44 AM

Welcome to the forum Judah.....

 

It’s often said by prominent evolutionists that natural selection is one of the creative mechanisms driving evolution. However, the fundamental function of natural selection is to help organisms adapt in a given environment. This biological adjustment does not produce any novelties in an organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, but conserves the variants which fit the environment. In fact, natural selection does not help organisms adapt fast enough in certain environments and for this reason they become extinct. Natural selection is thus a weak and passive process.
 

Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which help an organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants (mutated variants) which lower survival. It simply halts and discards by the filtering process. As a result, natural selection does not produce any real novelties because it can only act on the genetic potentialities that are implicit in the DNA structure of a particular species and preserves the good and discards the bad. Natural selection is a conservative process and works to preserve the status quo in a population.

 

The process of natural selection fits well with the creationist framework of conservation of biological systems. Since we know that God had a purpose for each created kind, we would expect that He would institute a mechanism which would not only secure genetic integrity, but would also help biological systems to survive.

 

I look forward to your comments. God bless!

 

  

Furthermore, natural selection acts as a sieve through which only pre-existing traits pass which help the organism survive. Simultaneously it also culls out the misfit variants which weaken the organism which also helps with survival.   

There seems to be some confusion here.   Creationists often argue, quite correctly, that natural selection doesn't add any "new information" to a population. 

 

The process of evolution has two components......  descent with modification which provides what is often called "new information" and natural selection which acts as a filter on the "information."  The "creative" portion of the process is descent with modification, not selection.

 

Natural selection is too weak to help an organism adapt in an environment that is too hostile for its survival. Think of natural selection as a genetic gatekeeper. When normal genes come up to the gate, the gatekeeper allows them through, but when a mutated gene comes up to the gate, the gatekeeper does not let it through. The gatekeeper says either "yes" or "no." This is a passive task. 

Natural selection is "passive?"   You must have a unique definition of "passive."  According to the Miriam-Webster online dictionary, "selection" is defined as: "the act or process of selecting."   Let's see some of the other ways you have described selection.   Hint:  the term "selection" itself implies the process is anything but passive.

 

Anyway, here are some of the descriptions you've used for natural selection:

...  natural selection acts as a sieve... preserves the good and discards the bad .... works to preserve ... selected out ... The filtering process culls ... gatekeeper says either "yes" or "no."

 

So, selection acts, preserves, works, selects, filters, etc.   These are NOT passive behaviors.

 

If part of the process is "random" or "passive" it would be descent with modification, not selection.



#11 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 22 November 2017 - 12:45 PM

"Which make it clear that natural selection and mutation are both part of that creative process"

 

Popoi - ​Most evolutionary laypeople assume that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is not! Based on what we know natural selection can and cannot do we know that it does not produce evolution. Hence my thread question.  

 

Can you provide proof, without employing mutations, that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and in that case how it pushes evolution forward? I also submit that mutations are not a mechanism of evolution either, but that's for another thread. Here we'll stay on the topic of natural selection.

 

"Not always." 

 

Not always what? Mutational changes? Weaker offspring? Or that it culls out mutations?

 

"Describing natural selection as “weak” doesn’t actually mean anything"

 

Natural selection says either "enter" or "do not enter." This is not exactly what Richard Dawkins calls the "blind watchmaker." It is a weak mechanism. 

 

"why would you expect there to be a built in mechanism to help things survive?"

 

Why not? Why would God not institute a mechanism which would allow for adjustments of characteristics (within limits) to changes in the environment? We expect this in the creation framework, or should we expect for something like natural selection to come out of thin air, as evolution proposes?  



#12 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 22 November 2017 - 01:10 PM

"Welcome to the forum Judah....."

 

Thank you Piasan!

 

"So, selection acts, preserves, works, selects, filters, etc.   These are NOT passive behaviors."

 

My descriptors do not negate my point that natural selection is passive. I am bringing up an important distinction between what natural selection actually does and what popular evolutionists say it does. Well known evolutionists present natural selection as a "blind watchmaker," a "designer," a "creator," while I say that natural selection is simply a gatekeeper. Which one is more active/passive in your opinion?

 

Blessings!  



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 November 2017 - 01:23 PM

Lion Of Judah, welcome to the forum.

 

In my opinion you are correct that natural selection is both weak and not necessarily a mechanism of evolution. It is claimed to be one of the driving mechanisms of evolution.

 

I will now explain;

 

First of all the terminology, "natural selection" isn't meant to be taken literally and plays far too much importance in peoples thinking, namely evolutionists'.

 

What is natural selection, literally? Is it a selection? No, it can be literally described as two tautologies. It is these two tautologous facts;

 

1. Dead things can't reproduce. 

2. Traits conducive to survival, will survive. 

 

Or even more simply, things that can live will, and things that can't live, won't live. When you put those things together all it means is that if organisms can mate their genes will reproduce. Now this also counts for inherited diseases and defects, people prone to diabetes or whatever, as long as they can reproduce, their genes are passed on and, "natural selection" can't touch them. In fact this is known genetics, that natural selection can't touch neutral or nearly-neutral or even slightly harmful deleterious mutations. In that sense there is no literal selection, in that genes are actually only, "chosen" so to speak, because they exist to be passed on. So natural selection is weak in that it can't touch many traits and genes which aren't healthy. This means that genetic entropy is inevitable, meaning that natural selection isn't part of any creation, it is only the continuation of largely predetermined traits. If we have a gene pool with genes, then it's guaranteed that as long as individuals in that gene pool aren't killed and therefore can reproduce, that their genes which are already existent, will continue to exist. 

 

In other words, "natural selection" is GUARANTEED to happen even if macro-evolution never occurred, because as long as there are individuals in a population that die, and as long as there are individuals in a population with traits conducive to survival and they live, and they can reproduce, then natural selection can happen whether macro evolution does or does not happen.

 

Question; If natural selection truly "selects" traits for survival then why does it select things which can kill people? It in fact isn't a selection, what's happening is that individuals which will inherit diseases almost certain to kill them, are having offspring and because they are having offspring traits which can kill are passed on. If the diseases they inherit killed them before they could have offspring then the disease could be culled by natural selection. Meaning that selection is weak, IMHO because to be selected an individual just has to mate and whatever the condition of their genes, their genes will be passed on and so survive.

 

Conclusion; I think way too much is made of natural selection, it's really just a description of some facts which are guaranteed to happen, that dead things can't pass on that which has died with them, and living things can. There quite literally isn't much more to it than that but the causes obviously behind all of this, are what truly drives NS. (predetermined)



#14 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 22 November 2017 - 01:48 PM

Popoi - ​Most evolutionary laypeople assume that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is not! Based on what we know natural selection can and cannot do we know that it does not produce evolution.

Not by itself, no.

 

Can you provide proof, without employing mutations, that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and in that case how it pushes evolution forward?

Are you maybe misunderstanding what it means to call something a mechanism of evolution? Natural selection and mutation aren’t individually doing evolution, but they are both involved in the process.

Think of it this way: A steering wheel and an engine are both mechanisms involved in driving. If I asked you to show me how your steering wheel moved your car without employing the engine, you’d correctly call it a stupid request. The steering wheel isn’t what does the pushing, it’s what directs that push. Just spinning the wheel without any force isn’t what we’d call driving, and neither is running the engine without directing the resulting work anywhere.

 

Not always what? Mutational changes? Weaker offspring? Or that it culls out mutations?

The last two.

  

Natural selection says either "enter" or "do not enter." This is not exactly what Richard Dawkins calls the "blind watchmaker." It is a weak mechanism.

That’s not actually what natural selection does, but that’s kind of beside the point.

A now departed forum member used to talk about how gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. While true, the part he was missing was that those forces aren’t necessarily opposed at the scales we’re usually interested in. It doesn’t matter that gravity is a relatively weak force when we’re talking about things on a planetary scale and the other forces don’t meaningfully interact over those distances.

Thinking of things on a population scale, a relatively weak force in a particular direction can result in significant change over long periods of time.

 

Why not? Why would God not institute a mechanism which would allow for adjustments of characteristics (within limits) to changes in the environment? We expect this in the creation framework, or should we expect for something like natural selection to come out of thin air, as evolution proposes?

There is no supportable “why not” when you're dealing with a supernatural force. The question is whether it is specifically expected. If things weren’t supposed to die, it doesn’t seem like such a mechanism would be expected. If they were or it was anticipated that they might, it doesn’t seem like a weak mechanism is what would be expected.

Being able to explain something and having expected it are two very different things.

#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:25 PM

"Which make it clear that natural selection and mutation are both part of that creative process"
 
Popoi - ​Most evolutionary laypeople assume that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is not! Based on what we know natural selection can and cannot do we know that it does not produce evolution. Hence my thread question.  
 
Can you provide proof, without employing mutations, that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and in that case how it pushes evolution forward? I also submit that mutations are not a mechanism of evolution either, but that's for another thread. Here we'll stay on the topic of natural selection.
 
"Not always." 
 
Not always what? Mutational changes? Weaker offspring? Or that it culls out mutations?
 
"Describing natural selection as “weak” doesn’t actually mean anything"
 
Natural selection says either "enter" or "do not enter." This is not exactly what Richard Dawkins calls the "blind watchmaker." It is a weak mechanism. 
 
"why would you expect there to be a built in mechanism to help things survive?"
 
Why not? Why would God not institute a mechanism which would allow for adjustments of characteristics (within limits) to changes in the environment? We expect this in the creation framework, or should we expect for something like natural selection to come out of thin air, as evolution proposes?



"Why not? Why would God not institute a mechanism which would allow for adjustments of characteristics (within limits) to changes in the environment? We expect this in the creation framework, or should we expect for something like natural selection to come out of thin air, as evolution proposes? "


And that is exactly what God did when he programmed the ability of Adaptation into the DNA of Each Created Kind in the beginning..

Thr problem is, Accidentalists have dishonesty taken Adaptation, Variation, and DEVO lution and Lied to generations of High School Biology Students by proclaiming that means a Microbe slowly turned into a Microbiologist... Satan's greatest lie indeed....

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

#16 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 23 November 2017 - 10:32 AM

"welcome to the forum."

 

Thank you Mike! I appreciate your contribution. 

 

"Traits conducive to survival, will survive."

 

Absolutely. Natural selection is now extensively recognized as tautologous because it puts forward that the "fittest" are merely those that survive, and the reason they survive is because of their fitness. Nothing profound at all. 

 

"Now this also counts for inherited diseases and defects, people prone to diabetes or whatever, as long as they can reproduce, their genes are passed on and, "natural selection" can't touch them."

 

Great point Mike! Some of the worst diseases doctors are treating these days are caused by genetic mutations and natural selection permits passage right on through. It is a weak mechanism indeed. I had forgotten about this fact until you brought it up. Thank you.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#17 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 23 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

"Natural selection and mutation aren’t individually doing evolution, but they are both involved in the process."

 

Popoi - Darwinism experienced a reformation period when it was found that so-called "natural selection" accomplished no evolutionary changes. The addition of random mutations became the neo-Darwinian position. Nevertheless, early evolutionists promoted that evolutionary changes occurred by natural selection alone. The addition of random mutations has not rescued evolution because of the nature of mutations. 

 

"That’s not actually what natural selection does"

 

So what does it do?

 

"There is no supportable “why not” when you're dealing with a supernatural force."

 

I have a hard time believing that natural selection has come out of thin air. The logical position, when examining biological systems, is to anticipate an adaptive mechanism set in motion by the Creator to ensure genetic integrity and to aid with survivability. In the creation framework we have an answer for conservation and the permanent end of the vital process. 

 

Popoi - I would like to bring your attention to what Mike the Wiz has posted. He makes some important point. 

 

Best wishes. 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    popoi