Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Makes No Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

#161 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 03:51 PM

According to the scientific research, the red squirrel is dying off because of disease spread by the grey.

''Grey squirrels transmit a virus to red squirrels, killing them within a fortnight, according to new research''.

This is not an example of natural selection, it's a case of why different things should not mix because they are different and can contract disease etc from each other.

View Post

So, the Red squirrel is more susceptible to the disease, and is dying off?

The red squirrel is less fit in the current environment, and is dying off?

That's natural selection.

#162 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 03:55 PM

So, the Red squirrel is more susceptible to the disease, and is dying off?

The red squirrel is less fit in the current environment, and is dying off?

That's natural selection.

View Post


The red squirrel is dying because the grey is spreading a disease. This is what happens when things mix. This has nothing to do with 'natural selection'.

The Bible says God created everything within a specific boundary and designated it an area. The greys are not native and have broken out of their indigeous habitat and are killing off the red squirrels.

I don't think you understand the term 'natural selection'.

#163 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:00 PM

The red squirrel is dying because the grey is spreading a disease. This is what happens when things mix. This has nothing to do with 'natural selection'.

The Bible says God created everything within a specific boundary and designated it an area. The greys are not native and have broken out of their indigeous habitat and are killing off the red squirrels.

I don't think you understand the term 'natural selection'.

View Post

I don't think YOU do.

Natural selection is the fact that the most fit animals will become the majority of the population.

There is a circumstance (both grey squirrels and red squirrels populating an area, and getting infected with a disease) and the red squirrels are less fit than the grey squirrels.

The grey squirrels have become the majority of the population.

In what way is that NOT Natural Selection?
What is the difference between that and Natural Selection?

#164 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:05 PM

I don't think YOU do.

Natural selection is the fact that the most fit animals will become the majority of the population.

There is a circumstance (both grey squirrels and red squirrels populating an area, and getting infected with a disease) and the red squirrels are less fit than the grey squirrels.

The grey squirrels have become the majority of the population.

In what way is that NOT Natural Selection?
What is the difference between that and Natural Selection?

View Post


So according to you, if one population spreads a disease to another, that is 'natural selection'?

I don't know if this is serious?

#165 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:09 PM

So according to you, if one population spreads a disease to another, that is 'natural selection'?

I don't know if this is serious?

View Post

A group dying out due to inability to survive a disease is natural selection.

It's selection (for disease resistance) which is natural.

It's differential reproductive success resulting in changing populations.


In what way is it NOT natural selection?
What is your definition of natural selection, and in what way does this event fail to meet it?

Note that it meets the definition of natural selection necessary for evolution to occur. If a red squirrel were to be born that were resistant to the disease, it would reproduce more successfully, and future generations of red squirrels would overwhelmingly be resistant.

#166 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 12 July 2010 - 05:35 PM

A group dying out due to inability to survive a disease is natural selection.


No it isn't.

It's selection (for disease resistance) which is natural.


There is no 'selection'. The disease is a result of the two different squirrels mixing, in nature this is not natural, most animals stick to their own habitats.

What is your definition of natural selection, and in what way does this event fail to meet it?


I already gave it to you. You believe if things spread disease, that is evidence for 'natural selection', i find it hard to take this claim seriously as will most who read your posts.

#167 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:11 PM

There is no 'selection'. The disease is a result of the two different squirrels mixing, in nature this is not natural, most animals stick to their own habitats.
I already gave it to you. You believe if things spread disease, that is evidence for 'natural selection', i find it hard to take this claim seriously as will most who read your posts.

View Post

''The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.''

is the definition you gave.

This is a process, in nature, whereby only the organisms capable of dealing with the disease (those that are best adapted to the environment containing the disease) tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations, while those that are less adapted (those incapable of surviving the disease) tend to be eliminated.

I'd say it fits your definition.

#168 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 July 2010 - 08:19 PM

Cassiterides, disease is an environmental factor. It is a form of natural selection in the same way that predation is: those who are affected do not pass on their genes, while those who avoid it (because of a behavioural, physiological, or geographical reason) do. It doesn’t matter who has the disease first. The point is that some animals are poorly adapted to survive it, and therefore will be selected against.

#169 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:46 PM

So according to you, if one population spreads a disease to another, that is 'natural selection'?

I don't know if this is serious?

View Post



Do you think that the grey squirrels are purposefully spreading this disease?

#170 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 12:56 AM

What about myxamatosis in rabbits? What about warfarin resistance in rats?

Natural selection in both cases killed off most of the affected creatures. Variation within the species (in the warfarin case almost certainly new information due to the nature of the spread from one particular area indicating that suddenly a mutation had provided a rat in the area (south of England, in East Anglia if I remember correctly) means that some survive. The few that survive pass on their genes.

We've been through this before, and you agreed that this was how NS worked. Remember this:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3443

a) Organisms vary.
b ) There will be a struggle for life
c) There can be an infinite diversity of structure (I know, I know - I have problems with this too, but remember this is about the definition, not about the particular details) and some of this diversity is useful to each beings welfare.
d) The organisms that have these changes "will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life"
e) These organisms will have more offspring, similarly characterised.

He then makes the point that This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection

Before we deal with whether the theory works, is this summary of mine a fair representation of what Darwin says?

Yes that's pretty much Darwin's theory summarised. One thing we agree on atleast is the definition of 'darwinism' here. Our definition of the word 'theory' however will probably be very different.


This is exactly what Darwin's theory said, you agreed and here is an example. With this and the example of the guppies:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3448

Means that the NS mechanism is watertight.

#171 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:29 AM

Cassiterides, disease is an environmental factor. It is a form of natural selection in the same way that predation is: those who are affected do not pass on their genes, while those who avoid it (because of a behavioural, physiological, or geographical reason) do. It doesn’t matter who has the disease first. The point is that some animals are poorly adapted to survive it, and therefore will be selected against.


Only evolutionists believe disease is an environmental factor. The root of disease in the Bible is sin or faulty thinking or doing. Again this is the case where we have polar opposite beliefs on an issue.

#172 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:33 AM

Only evolutionists believe disease is an environmental factor. The root of disease in the Bible is sin or faulty thinking or doing. Again this is the case where we have polar opposite beliefs on an issue.

View Post

1)
So, what sin are Red Squirrels committing that is getting them killed off by this disease?
What is their faulty thinking or doing?

What sin gives Rabbits Miximatosis?

2)
Do you admit that I have provided evidence for Natural Selection, as defined within the evolutionary model?

#173 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:33 AM

What about myxamatosis in rabbits?  What about warfarin resistance in rats?


Disease is not evidence for natural selection.

We've been through this before, and you agreed that this was how NS worked.  Remember this:


We all agree with the definition, as it can be found in any house dictionary, but you have not still provided any examples of natural selection.

This is exactly what Darwin's theory said, you agreed and here is an example.  With this and the example of the guppies:


In the thread you created on natural selection you failed to provide an example of it. Instead you resorted to pasting experiments from man-made environments. :P

#174 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:39 AM

Disease is not evidence for natural selection.

View Post

Cassi. You don't get to define terms as you please.

You have excluded Disease from natural selection. No doubt, were I to roll out the next set of examples, you would say that Predation doesn't count as natural selection either.

Your argument is equivalent to going "for christianity to be true, Jesus must have died on a cross. I define a cross as a burning ball of neon, contained within a massive buckyball, therefore Jesus didn't die on a cross."

For evolution to be true, Natural Selection (as defined within evolutionary theory) must occur. Natural Selection (as defined within evolutionary theory) occurs.
The evidence I have given demonstrates Natural Selection (as defined within evolutionary theory).
It may not demonstrate "Natural Selection" (as defined within Cassi's mind, and the definition not shared with anyone else) but it demonstrates what is needed for evolutionary theory, and it demonstrates the definition you gave.

#175 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:43 AM

1)
So, what sin are Red Squirrels committing that is getting them killed off by this disease?
What is their faulty thinking or doing?

What sin gives Rabbits Miximatosis?


The origin of disease is not the topic of the thread. If you want to know what the Bible says about disease, why not read it?

There are lots of different theories on disease. Only evolutionists believe diseases are random.

2)Do you admit that I have provided evidence for Natural Selection, as defined within the evolutionary model?


No, you and PhilC have still failed to provide an example of natural selection.

#176 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:49 AM

Disease is not evidence for natural selection.
We all agree with the definition, as it can be found in any house dictionary, but you have not still provided any examples of natural selection.
In the thread you created on natural selection you failed to provide an example of it. Instead you resorted to pasting experiments from man-made environments. :P

View Post



Disease isn't evidence, but the survival rate of those with the genes to fight the disease is.

At least five times, and probably a lot more, in the thread about guppies I pointed out that the experiment was also done in the wild (and this detail was in the OP), and studied up to nine years later. If you choose not to read my posts or ignore what is written you can't then say we have provided no evidence.

The definition again:

a) Organisms vary.
b ) There will be a struggle for life
c) There can be an infinite diversity of structure (I know, I know - I have problems with this too, but remember this is about the definition, not about the particular details) and some of this diversity is useful to each beings welfare.
d) The organisms that have these changes "will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life"
e) These organisms will have more offspring, similarly characterised.

Now in practice:

a) Organisms vary.
b ) There will be a struggle for life as myxamatosis takes control
c) There can be an infinite diversity of structure (I know, I know - I have problems with this too, but remember this is about the definition, not about the particular details) and some of this diversity is useful to each beings welfare because some rabbits are better fitted to survive myxamotosis
d) The organisms that have these changes which help them survive myxamatosis"will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life"
e) These organisms which survived myxamatosis will have more offspring, similarly characterised.

Do you see? Surviving disease is another observed case of Natural Selection, Warfarin resistance or predation by cichlids are two others.

#177 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:50 AM

Only evolutionists believe diseases are random.

View Post


Wait. What? Can you expand on this because I don't believe what I just read was what you intended to type.

#178 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:51 AM

The origin of disease is not the topic of the thread. If you want to know what the Bible says about disease, why not read it?

View Post

I have read much of it. Reading the Bible is how I lost my faith.

It makes no mention of viruses and bacteria being punishments from God.

There are lots of different theories on disease. Only evolutionists believe diseases are random.

Again with the strawmen. Evolutionists do not believe diseases are random. We accept Germ Theory, which states that many diseases are caused by micro-organisms, that spread and evolve as any other organism would; but most of which are obligate parasites.

No, you and PhilC have still failed to provide an example of natural selection.

By YOUR definition of natural selection. By the definition of natural selection used in evolutionary theory, what we have given evidence of IS natural selection.

You're equivocating. We've provided evidence of the thing evolutionary theory claims.

#179 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:52 AM

You have excluded Disease from natural selection.


Obviously, because i don't believe disease is 'natural'.

#180 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:54 AM

Obviously, because i don't believe disease is 'natural'.

View Post

If you're a biblical literalist who doesn't accept disease as natural, I'm guessing you don't accept predation as natural?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users