Jump to content


Photo

Micro & Macroevolution


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#101 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 02:09 AM

I could just respond that the species that didn't change skin color might have changed some other way.  The point is that there's no evolutionary level.  Evolution doesn't make organisms "better" based on criteria you or I judge.
*


This is absolutely untrue. Evolution is the invention of humans to justify certain specific racial/cultural domination of the times. Survival of the Fittest, invented by a European for Europeans who were bent on dividing up the natural resource spoils of the world. Problem was there were already indiginous peoples living on Britain's, France's, Spain's, Dutch, etc self proclaimed sovereign lands before they had a chance to occupy them. Hence they needed a scientific justification to take over and subject these peoples for their own good.

But I'm also curious about this not so blind intelligence that guides evolution ????????? Does IT have a name ??????? Is IT a god, since you claim to believe in a god, but have yet to ever explain or prove that this god exists and developed evolution to produce the natural world, but IT seems to have also factored in many anomalies that mask IT's (god's) existance and guiding ever directing presence.



This is true. Evolution decides what is better based on nature, which is why it is called natural selection. If you fit your environment, you survive. If you don't, you die.




Someone needs to start a thread on Evolutionist's penchant for attributing personification attributes or qualites to various inanimate componants of Evolution and it's concepts. Examples, Mother Earth , NaturalSelection , Selfish Genes , and the list is endless, but makes for a good discussion. ;)

#102 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 02:56 AM

Then explain the intelligent part of evolution that makes these decisions?

View Post


There is no intelligent part of evolution that tells mutations how or when to occur. I have already discussed this with you, ikester7579.

Mutations happen randomly all the time. If they are particularly effective (whether benefecial or deleterious), natural selection plays its 'guiding card' and allows the beneficial mutations to be passed to the progeny whilst the deleterious ones get washed out, whether immediately because it is particularly bad or a gradual loss through generations.

It doesn't actively decide what's good or bad, it's as simple as the ones that lower reproductive rates don't get passed on, while the ones that don't, survive.

#103 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:20 AM

There is no intelligent part of evolution that tells mutations how or when to occur. I have already discussed this with you, ikester7579.

Mutations happen randomly all the time. If they are particularly effective (whether benefecial or deleterious), natural selection plays its 'guiding card' and allows the beneficial mutations to be passed to the progeny whilst the deleterious ones get washed out, whether immediately because it is particularly bad or a gradual loss through generations.

It doesn't actively decide what's good or bad, it's as simple as the ones that lower reproductive rates don't get passed on, while the ones that don't, survive.

View Post


Your explanation is absolutely untrue, outdated and and you are hijacking intelligence to use as a guide for for blind chanced lucky designs. Random mutations DO NOT drive the natural world towards any possitive goals. The massive amounts of research lately have proven over and over again that brilliant engineering codes, Error Correction mechanisms, and now the latest in a new found genetic code within a code directing intelligently the primary code are the driving factors of environmental adaptibilities and survival strategies. How would you go about proving through an experiment that randomness is beneficial ??????? No fair hijacking intelligence to explain it. It's got to be trully blind, pointless and indifferent.

DNA has been compared and rightly so, to a computer or any other communications system. Perhaps you could illustrate how you could run several copying error codes (kinds like a blind hacker) into a computer system without it crashing.

Did you know that random mutations were known to be a huge fallacy way back in 1948, by a researcher named Barbara McClintock ??????? But she was demonized and villified by the then intellectually Elite of the Darwin Party until other scientists proved her right in the late 60s early 70s with their own research. Then and only then did she win a Nobel Prize in 1073 for her work proving that DNA actually works intelligently with purpose and intent with goals in mind and that the old guard's insistance of random mutations was a farce.

#104 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:21 AM

There is no intelligent part of evolution that tells mutations how or when to occur. I have already discussed this with you, ikester7579.

Mutations happen randomly all the time. If they are particularly effective (whether benefecial or deleterious), natural selection plays its 'guiding card' and allows the beneficial mutations to be passed to the progeny whilst the deleterious ones get washed out, whether immediately because it is particularly bad or a gradual loss through generations.

It doesn't actively decide what's good or bad, it's as simple as the ones that lower reproductive rates don't get passed on, while the ones that don't, survive.

View Post


If it takes 30,000 mutations to form the eye, what would keep each and every mutation in the right order to form the conclusion which would be the eye if "nothing" guides it like you say? That would be like winning the lotto 30,000 times using the same number each time. The odds of this are not even comprehensible.

So if you are claiming it just happens, then you are invoking conformity which is not scientific. Which means that you think all processes of evolution happened because you believe it's true. So all processes and evidence has to conform to that theory regardless of any problems. That's not science. Science is where the evidence leads the way with all the good and bad of it in tow. To omit the bad stuff in favor of making the idea work is conformity. Conformity does not prove something, it allows someone to believe something through ignorance.

#105 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:35 AM

Sorry, Paul.  I grouped together the first five letters of your moniker.

Eocene, I just finished reading a couple of Web pages on Descent of Man.
Here are a few miscellaneous thoughts:

■ Darwin referred to Evolution as "the belief that man is descended from some lower form."  Haeckel referred to our species as "a most highly-developed vertebrate animal," in contrast to the "lower stages of development in the animal kingdom." 

Paul and I keep trying to tell you that Evolution is not a ladder, but rather a difference in adaptation to different environments.  It looks like we need to tell Darwin and Haeckel the same thing. 

(PS If I had my way, we wouldn't even call it Evolution!)

■ Darwin was not advancing genocide, but rather predicting either genocide or absorption. 

He was right, too.  In Brazil, entire aboriginal villages have been wiped out to make way for land developers.  In Peru and Bolivia, the Quechua language is slowing losing ground to the Spanish language.

■ In Darwin's time, there was a feud between the monogenists and the polygenists.  One believed that all races were descended from the same ancestors, the other believed that God created each race separately.

Darwin was apparently a monogenist, because he wrote, "Those who do not admit the principle of evolution must look at species as separate creations."

■ Louis Agassiz was a polygenist.  This is somewhat amusing, because many Creationists are fond of parading Creationist scientists across the computer screen and saying, "These famous scientists all believed in Creationism.  Why can't you?"  Agassiz is usually a member of that parade.

So now, any Creationist who advances that argument will have a choice: either abandon argument from authority or ask us all to endorse polygeny.

■ Darwin believed that racial differences were due to S@xual selection, whereas Evolutionists today--and even most Creationists who admit to macroevolution--attribute those differences to differences in the environment.

See there?  Evolutionists don't believe everything Darwin said!

■ Another quote from Descent of Man is "Man has ultimately become superior to woman."  As far as I know, the quote means exactly the same thing in context that it means out of context.  Just four years after Descent of Man was published, Antoinette Blackwell published a feminist book in reaction to Darwin.

So you have a stronger case against Darwin as a male chauvinist than you do for Darwin as a racist.
If you're going to argue that Paul and I are male chauvinists because we agree with Darwin on Evolution, I'm all prepared.
If you're going to argue that Paul and I will become male chauvinists if we remain Evolutionists for too long, I'm all prepared.
If you're going to argue that Paul and I will be granted instant immunity from male chauvinism the moment we convert to Creationism, I'm all prepared.

■ The quote that you gave us has appeared in at least 300 Websites.  Can you honestly say that you've read the whole book?  Or did you merely copy that quote from one of those Websites?

■ Assuming that you've read the book and Paul hasn't, does that make you a better person than Paul?  Keep in mind that you're 39 years older than Paul, so you've had 39 more years more time to read books than he has.

As for whether or not Darwin was a racist, I'm afraid I'm still out to lunch.
According to one of the Web pages which I read, it seems that Darwin was, too.

View Post


Here is a good read: http://www.yecheadqu...rg/shame.3.html

#106 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:42 AM

If it takes 30,000 mutations to form the eye, what would keep each and every mutation in the right order to form the conclusion which would be the eye if "nothing" guides it like you say? That would be like winning the lotto 30,000 times using the same number each time. The odds of this are not even comprehensible.



I've already answered that exact example in the last post where I replied to you in a different thread, I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste my answer:

"Nothing 'guided' the mutations. They simply happened, and natural selection removed the detrimental ones and allowed the helpful ones. It's really not all that complicated.
Chances are the eye would still work, it just probably wouldn't be as good as the competition, and in harsh environment, it would get washed out. And just to point out, the eye didn't form from 30,000 mutations just being thrown together.

Here's the likely steps proposed by Darwin: (right after that quote that some creationists leapt at, despite it being blatently out of context, where Darwin 'claimed' that the forming of the eye was "absurd in the highest degree.")

* Photosensitive cells.
* Aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve.
* An optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.
* Pigment cells forming a small depression.
* Pigment cells forming a deeper depression.
* The skin over the depression taking a lens shape.
* Muscles allowing the lens to adjust."


So if you are claiming it just happens, then you are invoking conformity which is not scientific. Which means that you think all processes of evolution happened because you believe it's true. So all processes and evidence has to conform to that theory regardless of any problems. That's not science. Science is where the evidence leads the way with all the good and bad of it in tow. To omit the bad stuff in favor of making the idea work is conformity. Conformity does not prove something, it allows someone to believe something through ignorance.


I don't see how I was conforming to anything other than the evidence which I drew my conclusions from. I did not start with a belief that I thought to be true, but with evidence that I realised connected with evolution. If I do not understand something about evolution, I can look up possible theories, experiments, geology, genetics, anatomy etc., from a myriad of different sources. With creationism, all I have is a bible that was written, edited and sorted by humans.

Evolution doesn't 'omit the bad stuff'. It includes everything, and could you further classify what that 'bad stuff' is that I'm not addressing? The idea that the eye was thrown together by a random set of mutations in an individual that just happened to have everything in place and in the correct order, is indeed ludicrous and if that was what evolution proposed, I seriously doubt evolution would have it's place among science. Evolution is a gradual progression towards increasing complexity so that an organism can adapt to its environment. There's no ladder like format that evolution tries to follow, there is only stuff that works or doesn't work in different environments for different organisms.

#107 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:49 AM

Here is a good read: http://www.yecheadqu...rg/shame.3.html

View Post



I have seen this before and also seen many of the documentaries on it. Australia recently officially appologized for their ignorant behavior from embarassing past. Everyone should watch the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence".

eWjGteDg9VE

Rabbit Proof Fence - Unwanted Third Race

Sadly in another forum, I had a debate with an intellectual paasing himself off as a biologist and insisting that humans are all different species. Unfortunately that same neanderthal thinking of info above still exists today. It's just been cleaned up a little to give it an eye appeal of sophistication.

#108 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 04:55 AM

Your explanation is absolutely untrue, outdated and and you are hijacking intelligence to use as a guide for for blind chanced lucky designs.


Why is it untrue and outdated? How am I hijacking intelligence to "use as a guide for for blind chanced lucky designs" ? I don't really get what you meant there, because what I originally said was that "There is no intelligent part of evolution that tells mutations how or when to occur."

Random mutations DO NOT drive the natural world towards any possitive goals.


Random mutations are random and meaningless. There is no hierarchial path that evolution follows; there is no "right" or "wrong" adaption. What works for one organism mightn't work for another due to different bodily structures and environments.
Random mutations simply allow for change. The changes that are more effective in one environment and allow for higher reproductive rates stick around, because the genes are passed down. The changes that don't work (or don't work as well) don't get passed down.


The massive amounts of research lately have proven over and over again that brilliant engineering codes, Error Correction mechanisms, and now the latest in a new found genetic code within a code directing intelligently the primary code are the driving factors of environmental adaptibilities and survival strategies. How would you go about proving through an experiment that randomness is beneficial ??????? No fair hijacking intelligence to explain it. It's got to be trully blind, pointless and indifferent.


Micro evolution... it's been observed and tested. Also, artificial selection. We're able to breed dogs through the random mutations that result in different sizes in bodies, tails, legs etc., or colourings or shapes etc.

DNA has been compared and rightly so, to a computer or any other communications system. Perhaps you could illustrate how you could run several copying error codes (kinds like a blind hacker) into a computer system without it crashing.


It has been compared because of its sequential complexity. That doesn't mean it works just like a computer. A computer program was designed with a specific intent of the outcome, and as Dawkins puts it, it's not "specified in hindsight". Computers also don't usually have vestigial programs or pointless duplications or junk codes.

Did you know that random mutations were known to be a huge fallacy way back in 1948, by a researcher named Barbara McClintock ??????? But she was demonized and villified by the then intellectually Elite of the Darwin Party until other scientists proved her right in the late 60s early 70s with their own research. Then and only then did she win a Nobel Prize in 1073 for her work proving that DNA actually works intelligently with purpose and intent with goals in mind and that the old guard's insistance of random mutations was a farce.


That is untrue. Transposons do not have specified intent or goals. To quote Wikipedia, she discovered that "Transposons are sequences of DNA that can move around to different positions within the genome of a single cell, a process called transposition. In the process, they can cause mutations and change the amount of DNA in the genome. Transposons were also once called jumping genes, and are examples of mobile genetic elements. They were discovered by Barbara McClintock early in her career, for which she was awarded a Nobel prize in 1983.

They replicate by copying themselves and randomly inserting it into the hosts genome. Where's the intelligent purpose? And how do they disprove random mutations?

#109 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 05:50 PM

Then explain the intelligent part of evolution that makes these decisions?

View Post


There is no intelligent part of evolution, but natural selection would be your best answer. All I'm saying ikester, is that evolution doesn't go from better to worst based on what we think. You might say we're at a higher evolutionary level that cockroaches, but drop some hydrogen bombs around the world and you might see something totally different because apparently cockroaches can't be killed by nuclear warheads. :lol:

This is absolutely untrue. Evolution is the invention of humans to justify certain specific racial/cultural domination of the times. Survival of the Fittest, invented by a European for Europeans who were bent on dividing up the natural resource spoils of the world. Problem was there were already indiginous peoples living on Britain's, France's, Spain's, Dutch, etc self proclaimed sovereign lands before they had a chance to occupy them. Hence they needed a scientific justification to take over and subject these peoples for their own good.


Sigh.....again with the social commentary to discredit evolution since, well, you can't find the science.

But I'm also curious about this not so blind intelligence that guides evolution ????????? Does IT have a name ??????? Is IT a god, since you claim to believe in a god, but have yet to ever explain or prove that this god exists and developed evolution to produce the natural world, but IT seems to have also factored in many anomalies that mask IT's (god's) existance and guiding ever directing presence.


I see no need prove God exists. I believe what I believe. If you don't like it, tough. So you can stop trying to tell me what a failed Christian I am because I'm not even Christian. I accept scientific explanations because science has and its application have produced 1st world society you and I currently enjoy.

#110 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:09 AM

Edit ikester7579: I think you are starting to carry this a little to far. People are allowed to believe what they want. We are not on this planet to judge others just because they choose not to believe like us. We are supposed to give them the choice, if they reject that's their business.

Attacking people for what they believe is not the mission of this ministry. Being a part of this ministry means you also represent this ministry and therefore your conduct becomes a representation of us and Christ. Keep that in mind when you post.

2cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.


#111 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:45 AM

I've already answered that exact example in the last post where I replied to you in a different thread, I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste my answer:

"Nothing 'guided' the mutations. They simply happened, and natural selection removed the detrimental ones and allowed the helpful ones. It's really not all that complicated.


If that be the case, then God and His creation simply just happens. That's not science. And if you reject my view that is put into your terms, then you would be bias and possibly prejudice.

Also. saying that it just simply happens, is a form of conformity. That is where you believe in evolution to the point you cannot deny that everything, regardless of what it is, most conform to support your view. That's not science. Science would have required you to explain what you claim, or admit you don't know. But to justify why you don't know with a form of conformity, means you are trying to promote evolution as an absolute by implying through conformity that evolution answers everything. Which again is not science.

Chances are the eye would still work, it just probably wouldn't be as good as the competition, and in harsh environment, it would get washed out. And just to point out, the eye didn't form from 30,000 mutations just being thrown together.

Here's the likely steps proposed by Darwin: (right after that quote that some creationists leapt at, despite it being blatently out of context, where Darwin 'claimed' that the forming of the eye was "absurd in the highest degree.")

* Photosensitive cells.
* Aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve.
* An optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.
* Pigment cells forming a small depression.
* Pigment cells forming a deeper depression.
* The skin over the depression taking a lens shape.
* Muscles allowing the lens to adjust."


I can say: God created time first. Then He created space second. Then He created matter third. Now this would work because this is the only order that would work. But because I cannot see this, do my words make it true?

If by faith I decide to believe this, then what I believe becomes religion.

So if by faith you decide that you believe this is the order the eye evolved even though you cannot observe this. Then by faith you accept this as truth. Because empirical science is about observation, not words made to conform to theories and ideas. anyone can do that. But words don't make new realities, new truths until the words are confirmed. Can you confirm the order of the eye forming? Then by words you believe which means you accept them by faith.

I don't see how I was conforming to anything other than the evidence which I drew my conclusions from. I did not start with a belief that I thought to be true, but with evidence that I realised connected with evolution. If I do not understand something about evolution, I can look up possible theories, experiments, geology, genetics, anatomy etc., from a myriad of different sources. With creationism, all I have is a bible that was written, edited and sorted by humans.


Words are not empirical evidence. So your conclusion is based on opinion.

Evolution doesn't 'omit the bad stuff'. It includes everything, and could you further classify what that 'bad stuff' is that I'm not addressing? The idea that the eye was thrown together by a random set of mutations in an individual that just happened to have everything in place and in the correct order, is indeed ludicrous and if that was what evolution proposed, I seriously doubt evolution would have it's place among science. Evolution is a gradual progression towards increasing complexity so that an organism can adapt to its environment. There's no ladder like format that evolution tries to follow, there is only stuff that works or doesn't work in different environments for different organisms.

View Post


Can you tell me the exact number of differences in DNA in 2% between human and chimps?
Can you show me where this actual number is listed in any teaching book on evolution that is in our schools?

You cannot because 2% is easier to sell the masses than the actual number of differences. The only reason I know the answer was because I ran across it by accident why studying the difference in human DNA concerning twins. It was listed on a CSI type site based on law enforcement. Imagine that. I had to find an answer on a site that does not even promote evolution, but yet all the sites that do want tell you that number.

In the Miller experiment, can you tell me if all the amino acids for life were formed?
Can you tell me the percent needed for life that was missing?
Did you know that 98% of what was made along with the amino acids is toxic to all life from forming it it?

But let's take this to another level. Science wants to spend a trillion dollars to go to Mars. To sell the idea they hide some fact about the conditions on Mars that would kill any life that tried to form on it. Do you know what those facts are?

1) Mars has no ozone layer which means the full rays of the sun would kill any life from forming on it.
2) Full rays of the sun also sterilize the soil which insures no plants or microbes will ever grow.
3) The barometric pressures on mars is about 1/4-1/8 of that on earth. the barometric pressures controls the boiling and vaporization points of water. Being that Mars is as low as it is, the boiling point of water on that planet would be 50 degrees F. The vapor point would be about 40 degrees F.
4) Because the average temperature on Mars is about 70 degrees, if there was any water it would have boiled into the atmosphere at one point or another. being in a gaseous state, there would have been measurable evidence of this in the atmosphere. This evidence does not exist.
5) The low barometric pressures would also make it to where warm blooded animals could not exist. Why? The boiling point of water being 50 degrees means any animal sustaining a body temp above that would make their blood boil.
6) And cold blooded animals could not exist because they would need to warm up in the sun. And there are 2 problems here. One is that being in the full rays of the sun would kill the life-form. And two, if the sun raised the body temp above fifty degrees their blood would boil killing them as well.
7) Are the ice caps really frozen water? The atmosphere contains a high concentration of CO2 because there is no plant to convert to oxygen. The poles on Mars get much colder than on earth. So because of the high concentration of CO2, it freezes and falls like snow making the poles look like they have ice. Now how many time have we heard different scientists say that this frozen substance on the poles prove water?
8) The magnetic field of mars is much weaker than our planet. What this means is that the magnetic field does not deflect the solar wind as effectively as earth does. Why is this important? Solar wind has the ability to strip a planet of it's atmosphere. and is the very reason mars has a low barometric pressure is because most of it's atmosphere has been stripped away into space.

All the reasons we take for granted that allows life to exist here, is the very reason life cannot exist on mars.

And why is this information with held from the masses? Science has already determined they will go to Mars no matter the cost in money, or deception. Because if the tax payers knew all this, do you think they would still fork over a trillion dollars of their tax money? Of course not. Now you know why the bad stuff in science and evolution is hidden. You don't get money for ideas that don't sound like they will work. So to make them sound better, the problems are ignored.

#112 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:23 AM

I have seen this before and also seen many of the documentaries on it. Australia recently officially appologized for their ignorant behavior from embarassing past. Everyone should watch the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence".
Rabbit Proof Fence - Unwanted Third Race

Sadly in another forum, I had a debate with an intellectual paasing himself off as a biologist and insisting that humans are all different species. Unfortunately that same neanderthal thinking of info above still exists today. It's just been cleaned up a little to give it an eye appeal of sophistication.

View Post


My aunt, who is in this video, went to Australia to help with mission to the Aborigines. She is the Walmart Employee.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/miLVqlld8sA&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/miLVqlld8sA&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ed_2SLTZqao&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ed_2SLTZqao&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

#113 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:11 AM

"Nothing 'guided' the mutations. They simply happened, and natural selection removed the detrimental ones and allowed the helpful ones. It's really not all that complicated.

View Post


Actually, you made this complicated when you uttered the above self refuting statement. How can natural selection “remove” something without guiding it?

You may want to rethink your stance based upon the conundrum you put yourself in.

#114 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 05:12 AM

Actually, you made this complicated when you uttered the above self refuting statement. How can natural selection “remove” something without guiding it?

You may want to rethink your stance based upon the conundrum you put yourself in.

View Post


Sorry, that was badly stated. However, I have explained the process numerous times already...

Natural selection is just a name to describe a process. There's nothing intelligent or conscious about it. The mutations occured naturally and if it highered the reproductive rates (longer survival [stronger muscles, better sight etc.), increased fertility etc) then it was passed on to more individuals and hence spread throughout the population due to the rest being unable to compete as well. These are beneficial mutations. If the mutation worsened the individual (weaker, poor sight, prone to diseases, bad heart etc etc.) then that individual either dies before he can pass on his genes, or simply doesn't compete as well with the new "better" characteristics and gets eventually washed out. These are deleterious mutations.

Hence, natural selection inadvertently "filters" the mutations. It can described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious about it, as I explained very simplistically above.

#115 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 May 2010 - 03:57 PM

Sorry, that was badly stated. However, I have explained the process numerous times already...

View Post


You repeat this comment so many times you sound like a broken record. Do you have a problem with people who disagree with you, or do you think everyone who disagrees is not as smart as you?

#116 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 03:27 AM

You repeat this comment so many times you sound like a broken record. Do you have a problem with people who disagree with you, or do you think everyone who disagrees is not as smart as you?

View Post


Apologies. But you keep warping my words and claiming that evolution is actively deciding what to do, so I bring it up again.

And no I don’t have any problem with people who disagree with me and nor do I think that they are not as smart as me. That point has nothing to do with what I said.

The point is, I have repeated that comment many times and I have yet to get a reply explaining either why it’s wrong or how it indicates a conscious design. All I get is a diversion or an equivocation. If you disagree with it, that's fine - but I would prefer if you gave a reason why.

#117 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 May 2010 - 04:15 AM

Sorry, that was badly stated. However, I have explained the process numerous times already...

View Post

Actually, I haven’t seen a cogent explanation from anyone yet. But I’ll take your word for that.

Natural selection is just a name to describe a process.

View Post

Actually, we already had a word to describe that process; it was called “adaptation”. “Natural Selection” is a catch-phrase that was contrived to be evolution friendly. The word evolution itself is nothing more than a word meant to achieve a coup de grace on the word “adaptation”.

There's nothing intelligent or conscious about it.

View Post

If you take the time to read the scientific periodicals, white papers, and laypersons interpretations in magazines (such as National Geographic, Discovery etc…), you’ll soon realize that the projection of sentience is promulgated on a regular basis. With statements like “evolution did this”, “natural selection caused such-and-such” and “Nature did that” often capitalizing the letters “E” and “N” for effect to help indoctrinate the masses to the idea. And when cornered on this fact, they will give the same excuse you are now attempting. And I don’t blame you for using it, because its what you’ve heard in the evolutionists circles.

The mutations occured naturally and if it highered the reproductive rates (longer survival [stronger muscles, better sight etc.), increased fertility etc) then it was passed on to more individuals and hence spread throughout the population due to the rest being unable to compete as well. These are beneficial mutations. If the mutation worsened the individual (weaker, poor sight, prone to diseases, bad heart etc etc.) then that individual either dies before he can pass on his genes, or simply doesn't compete as well with the new "better" characteristics and gets eventually washed out.

View Post


Actually, the above is only partially true. The weaker do not die, man has intelligently designed glasses and eye surgeries to compensate for poor eyesight, and techniques to over come the other maladies you described. Therefore man passes on the so-called non-beneficial mutations to new generations. Because of this; Man, the only highly (so called) evolved species (which is another conundrum that helps to demolish evolution, but will be discussed at a later time) is himself an anathema to evolution, because of this very fact. So, if evolution were a fact, man would allow the weaker to die off, and not pursue allowing the weaker to pass on their weaker traits. But, as it is, these weaker traits are being “spread throughout the population” and generations to artificially compete against the so-called “beneficial mutations”.

These are deleterious mutations.

View Post

They are only “deleterious” to the cause of the evolution revolution. They only expose more chinks in the armor (if there were any armor other than evolutionary theology).

Hence, natural selection inadvertently "filters" the mutations. It can described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious about it, as I explained very simplistically above.

View Post


So, natural selection guides “without guiding”? That sounds like a pretty neat design.

#118 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:10 AM

Firstly - thank you for answering that. Finally :)

Actually, we already had a word to describe that process; it was called “adaptation”. “Natural Selection” is a catch-phrase that was contrived to be evolution friendly. The word evolution itself is nothing more than a word meant to achieve a coup de grace on the word “adaptation”.


And Natural Selection describes how the adaptations spread throughout the population.

If you take the time to read the scientific periodicals, white papers, and laypersons interpretations in magazines (such as National Geographic, Discovery etc…), you’ll soon realize that the projection of sentience is promulgated on a regular basis. With statements like “evolution did this”, “natural selection caused such-and-such” and “Nature did that” often capitalizing the letters “E” and “N” for effect to help indoctrinate the masses to the idea.


They don't try to indoctrinate the masses. That's quite an accusation :o They use words such as "guided" etc., rather than describing what natural selection is EVERY time they bring it up. It's assuming the layperson has a basic understanding of the concept. It's making it more reader-friendly. If you asked the magazines to give you an explanation without comparing it to any sentient or intelligent process, they could do so quite easily through purely scientific wordings.

And when cornered on this fact, they will give the same excuse you are now attempting. And I don’t blame you for using it, because its what you’ve heard in the evolutionists circles.


I am not "attempting an excuse". I resent being told that that's what I am doing. According to the theory of evolution, there is absolutely no intelligent guidance, and if you look at proper scientific journals (not magazines etc.,) and look for an explanation, you will not find "natural selection decided to do this", but how traits are favoured in accordance with the already established and understood concept of selection. You could cherrypick "favoured" in that sentence, but it would get you nowhere as I have already explained how and why a trait is "favoured". There's nothing actively deciding it, it's just what is beneficial usually survives, and what isn't, dies (in wildlife).

Actually, the above is only partially true. The weaker do not die, man has intelligently designed glasses and eye surgeries to compensate for poor eyesight, and techniques to over come the other maladies you described. Therefore man passes on the so-called non-beneficial mutations to new generations. Because of this; Man, the only highly (so called) evolved species (which is another conundrum that helps to demolish evolution, but will be discussed at a later time) is himself an anathema to evolution, because of this very fact. So, if evolution were a fact, man would allow the weaker to die off, and not pursue allowing the weaker to pass on their weaker traits.  But, as it is, these weaker traits are being “spread throughout the population” and generations to artificially compete against the so-called “beneficial mutations”.


Modern technology has changed our lifestyles to the point that natural selection does not play such a promiment role anymore. Hence, the weaker usually don't die. I wasn't discussing modernity. I was talking about millions (or even thousands) of years ago where humans didn't manufacture glasses or understand medicine. Back then, the concept of deleterious and beneficial mutations applied and very much so. For example, what happens in the animal world (not pets). A cheetah with weak legs won't catch the gazelle. A peacock with muted and dull feathers won't attract a mate.
Also, what do you mean by your second point? The "highly evolved" one? I know you said it is to be discussed at a later time, but I think there might be a slight misunderstanding there and so I would like to clarify what you mean.

Man doesn't (usually) allow the weaker to die off nowadays because of medicine and technology. For example, a blind human living today is in an extremely different environment in comparison to a blind cheetah or a blind seagull or a blind Mantis Shrimp or even a blind human living thousands of years ago in a small tribe.

Do you agree?

They are only “deleterious” to the cause of the evolution revolution. They only expose more chinks in the armor (if there were any armor other than evolutionary theology).


Hmm... how is an animal being born with poor sight, weak legs, deafness, slow reactions etc., not deleterious? Seem quite harmful to me. Those mutations will greatly contribute to the animals death (and genetics) whether due to immediate death or a slow fade out due to it being unable to compete.

So, natural selection guides “without guiding”? That sounds like a pretty neat design.

View Post


No, you've went right back to the beginning. Natural selection is just a word to describe an unconscious process, just like how a sieve "guides" the flour by sorting the lumps and powder. If we were to compare the sieve analogy to natural selection, the powder that goes through are the beneficial genes that survive and the lumps that stay on top are the deleterious mutations that die and inadvertently get "filtered" out of the population (and flour :lol: ).

You can describe it as "guiding" if you like (as many people do in order to simplify and not repeat constantly), but in reality, that is not how natural selection works.

Thank's for replying to all my points and staying relevant.

#119 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:34 AM

(From the other thread :lol:)

Actually, yes they do; because there is no other explanation for the obvious design in adaptation (it is indeed driven). The evolutionists can’t explain this, and yet they try hard to deny it from themselves and others. I don’t mean this as a slam, nor am I trying to be indignant, I am merely pointing out the logic and reasoning in the science.




No – they don’t. And there is a very good explanation for the apparent design. It’s called evolution. The evolutionists can explain this via natural selection which is not a conscious force, just like gravity isn't - yet that creates apparent order via orbits etc due to mass curving spacetime.
I'm pretty sure I explained it a bit better in the above post, so refer to that :o


Again, the planned direction is obvious in the adaptation of living species to their surrounding (i.e. becoming acclimated). And there is absolutely nothing wrong in being “deliberate” in pointing out logical fallacies, rational discrepancies, and scientific oversights.


Life adapts to its environment via mutations, usually at the micro level. These mutations are random and are not driven via any purposeful intent or even awareness. These slight changes are variations in genetic material usually are neutral - neither advantageous nor deleterious. However, sometimes they prove to be beneficial as it helps the organism compete in some way. And more often than the advantageous ones, they prove to be detrimental. These inadvertently get "screened" or "sieved" (note parentheses) out via natural selection, as they prove to be hazardous to the creature and often result in its death before progeny.

When I said "deliberate" - I was referring to creationists saying that evolution suggests that mutations are purpose driven and intentional. That is not what evolution subscribes to.


This seems to be a bit of a repetition so perhaps you should only address my above post (I was only trying to relocate the last discussion since it's so similar to the above).

#120 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:30 AM

Actually, we already had a word to describe that process; it was called “adaptation”. “Natural Selection” is a catch-phrase that was contrived to be evolution friendly. The word evolution itself is nothing more than a word meant to achieve a coup de grace on the word “adaptation”.


Ever notice that the actual word evolution can often be employed describing the evolution of any country's politics, economy, social endeavors, etc, and all relating to intelligent means by which these changes take place ??????? It's only with this subject about our natural world where blind indifference is employed as the master undriver. :o


If you take the time to read the scientific periodicals, white papers, and laypersons interpretations in magazines (such as National Geographic, Discovery etc…), you’ll soon realize that the projection of sentience is promulgated on a regular basis. With statements like “evolution did this”, “natural selection caused such-and-such” and “Nature did that” often capitalizing the letters “E” and “N” for effect to help indoctrinate the masses to the idea.  And when cornered on this fact, they will give the same excuse you are now attempting.


This has nothing to do with the natural world and how it really works, but rather philosophical idealogical religious dogma.

Here's some interesting points on the biblical reference to chance and selection. Notice that all things can be equal.

Matthew 13:3-8 is of course the parable of the Sower of fine seed. There are various scenarios of environmental conditions for which any farmer (Israel was an agrarian society) would understand perfectly. Interestingly all the seed sown was perfectly healthy, there were no flaws or mutated mistakes to show that some would fail because of random mutations. Of course the illustration was to be taken symbolically because the various types of soils represented the heart condition and response to the Kingdom message, but still it acknowledges environmental factors and everything on the planet is subject to environmental changes, that's not a tuffy.

The other mention of chance is mentioned at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (Amplified Bible)

11 "I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, neither is bread to the wise nor riches to men of intelligence and understanding nor favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."

Interestingly in both cases the fittest has just as equal a chance of losing as some perceived weaker one. There is no power of a mightier one over the other when it comes to unforeseen circumstances. I've found this with seed when I use to collect it for the forestry and some native southwestern plants nurseries. Viable strong healthy seed can be found everywhere after a natural disaster like say a fire. However, there is another engineered componant built inside all eco-systems. Pathogens were incorporated into all eco-systems to control over successes. Otherwise we'd never have healthy beautiful old growth forests. We'd have nothing but stunted forests of weed like trees to densely populated for even wildlife to use. That in itself has zero to do with blind chanced natural selection of weeding out of the perceived weaker things since all were completely healthy and strong to begin with.




So, natural selection guides “without guiding”? That sounds like a pretty neat design.

View Post


Convenient isn't it ? :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users