Natural selection is evolution?

[rittjc]

Paul

Nobody mentioned god you disingenuous con man. Keep religion out of the discussion. This includes the biggest and most deluding religion of all, Atheism. Why don't you evolutionists quit reading your child propaganda books and pretend that the men-gods you follow are fallible. I see atheist evolutionary scientists just like I see the Pope. Religious men for you to worship and follow every word from their mouth.

Why is there no evolutionists who is capable of critical thinking? What a sorry state of mankind.

 

[rittjc]

Straw-man, breeding dogs is not Natural Selection.

Paul

Your response was the only strawman argument. Whether an unguided process like Natural Selection or a guided process like dog breeding, you still have the same DNA limitation. You act as if DNA knows whether Nature is the source of change or a man looking for new characteristic in a breed. What fantastic thinking is the norm for you people.

Breeding is breeding. What a stupid counterargument.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a small dog. But keep in mind reptiles continue to grow as long as they live.

Dinosaurs were not reptiles.

All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard". Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?

Because they were not dinosaurs. The name dinosaur may have stuck, but no modern paleontologist would classify dinosaurs as reptiles, certainly not lizards. But the question you were addressing didn't mention dinosaurs, did it? So what about the giant mammals that once lived?

This is part of the marketing of evolution. It goes along with other dubious sales pitches of evolutionists like "Oort" clouds that killed off the Dinosaurs and saved all the mammals and other reptiles.

The Oort cloud is not a dubious sales pitch. Remember when Schumacher Levy 9 collided with Jupiter in '93? A cometary impact would not "save" the mammals and reptiles. They would die in vast numbers too. And it did not eradicate the dinosaurs either. Birds are a class (aves) that branched off from the theropod dinosaurs. The species that were destroyed were the largest and most energy consuming. Small animals like mammals and birds were able to just survive through the devastation, as were cold blooded animals that are very energy efficient.

But lots of herbivores grow huge. The five largest animals are herbivores. The size of something doesn't mean anything. There are some pretty large komodo dragons and crocodiles.

What does this have to do with the question that you were addressing?

Man tends to limit the population of animals on earth. This is part of his dominion over them. If a giant dinosaur stepped on a villagers he is probably going to be had for dinner by that village.

That's how it worked in The Flintstones.

I find the "claims" of the earth being millions of years old to be dubious.

That's called the argument from personal incredulity.

There are aspects of science that seem to refute that.

Name one.

But I don't want to get into that on this thread because it would give the dubious evolutionist a tangent to go off on. If you wish you can post a new thread on "How old is the earth".

I will.

But, one last thing. You need to understand what causes fossilization. This will send the evolutionists scurrying like bugs when the lights are turned on.

Like you've scurried from experimental verifications of Special Relativity?

Fossilization does not happen because something dies. It requires that something be buried under sediment like a flood sediment. When an animal dies, predators eat it, whether they are large predators or microbes. You have to stop this process. You can't bury it in the ground because the microbes can get to it there.

Not always. Ever heard of a peat bog?

Most fossils are petrified. Petrification means it needs water to deliver minerals to harden it so it doesn't decay and retains it original shape.

Fossils are NOT formed over millions of years. This is why there are polystrate fossils that sort of demonstrate that the different "evolutionary" layers are were all formed at the same time instead of they mythical gazzilions of years between the fossils.

Your problem here is that you are confusing strata laid down over a few season with broader strata laid down over greater periods of time. Polystrate fossils (like tree trunks) are buried by sediment over a space of, at most, several years. But you're right about one thing: Fossilization doesn't need millions of years to occur. In the right conditions (if the pH and temperature are right and the groundwater is rich in calcium carbonate then fossilization can be complete in just a few centuries.

It's all part of the evolutionist's show. Get some popcorn and sit back and watch the next act. You can bet it will be a good one.

Just don't learn anything, right?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nobody mentioned god you disingenuous con man. Keep religion out of the discussion.

You've already mentioned religion. It was you who earlier conflated evolutionary theory with atheism. It was you who labeled most of us "Jesus haters" after a single, innocuous mention if Christians. You've been calling evolutionary biology a "religion" from the very start.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Whether an unguided process like Natural Selection or a guided process like dog breeding, you still have the same DNA limitation.

DNA limitation? In a very short time, using artificial selection, humans have bred a great variety of dog forms working virtually exclusively with the genetic information already contained within the wolf. What could happen to a species subject to natural selection over extensive time-scales in which genetic mutations are a factor?

 

[Dancing David]

How is an appeal to scientific authority any different than say, a religious one, or any other?

Serious question BTW.

Hmm magic Sky Pixie talk only to Chosen One. Evidence in publication can be refuted. An appeal to scientific authority is not the same as science.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Science is based on testable evidence..

Could you show us the testable evidence for string theory or multiverses?

 

[Dancing David]

What evidence is there that you tested any scientific evidence, ever?

No we will not just take your word on it.

There is observational science as well, do you think that fossil sea shells are evidence or the layers of Mt. Vesuvius, how about bacteria adapting to anti-biotics?

 

[Dancing David]

It's always nice to hear differing points of view on scientific matters that many believe is already a proven thing.

I am wondering if you have given any thought to why back millions of years ago, we had many creatures that were like the creatures of today, except they were giant sized, and now they are relatively pint sized. What happened?

Funny thing how cocodiles are about the same now as they were in the Cretaceous, and turtles. Do you think that maybe repites and dinosaurs are different liniages.

Where is the evidence against evolution, any data which can't be explained by natural selection of reproduction?

 

[Paulhoff]

Nobody mentioned god you disingenuous con man. Keep religion out of the discussion. This includes the biggest and most deluding religion of all, Atheism. Why don't you evolutionists quit reading your child propaganda books and pretend that the men-gods you follow are fallible. I see atheist evolutionary scientists just like I see the Pope. Religious men for you to worship and follow every word from their mouth.

Why is there no evolutionists who is capable of critical thinking? What a sorry state of mankind.

OH sweet Jesus hear the love.

You just have no idea about evolution, none, none and none and also you are clueless.

Also atheism is not a religion, if so show me a so-called church and/or temple of atheism and/or a book written by a so-called non-god.

Be truthful, if you can, you just don't like being related to animals do you. You think you are above them, but with the words above you prove you are no better.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Your response was the only strawman argument. Whether an unguided process like Natural Selection or a guided process like dog breeding, you still have the same DNA limitation. You act as if DNA knows whether Nature is the source of change or a man looking for new characteristic in a breed. What fantastic thinking is the norm for you people.

Breeding is breeding. What a stupid counterargument.

Well if you knew anything about evolution, that is stated as one of the problems with becoming too selective, when a species that becomes too selective will become existence if its environment changes to quickly.

You should be reading books on evolution written by people who really know the subject, I looks like you haven't already.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Could you show us the testable evidence for string theory or multiverses?

String theory is not a true theory, it is not testable at this time, not to say that it will never be testable in the future.

Paul

 

[Dancing David]

The weaker still have success at reproduction. But reproduction means you already have a reproducing species. You can't get out of the starting blocks as an evolutionist.

Reproduction, hmm, lets see , have you heard of self catalyzing sets? They are chemical aggregates that allow for the generation of members of the set preferentially. And they don't belong to a species, yet they can participate in reproductive success.

You think nature has intelligence and reasoning and "prefers". That makes no sense at all. Do you believe mother earth is able to talk as well?

Did I anthropomorphize the phrase natural selection. I stated that natural selection prefers reproduction that means what it means. I attribute intelligence to some parts of nature but not to nature it’s self. There is no survival of the fittest, there is survival of the reproducers.
And yes I am a pagan, I like to worship Freya Slut Queen of the Gods and keeper of half the dead. But no I don't hear her talking to me.

But breeders had to have preexisting capabilities and information to pass on to offspring.

So what is that supposed to be, some crack the earth statement. Start with self catalyzing sets that aren't even species or organisms, and you know what it still works.

That's a heck of a "given", a free ride, or a black box you demand to defend your theory.

Does jesus put words in your mouth they way you put words in mine. How does natural selection work for self catalyzing sets of chemicals. the world exists and it is what it is. Ontology is moot.

"First everything existed, then natural selection took over". That as unscientific as you can be.

That isn't what I said, are you always this rude? may the High Ones of Old grant you kindness and wisdom to learn how to communicate with compassion and forbearance to this heathen.

Natural Selection can also called "extinction".

Perhaps you would like to add a word to that sentence?

But when you use that word it shows how stupid the idea of evolution is so we go back to using the term "Natural Selection" lest evolution be exposed for what it is. However, a rose by any other name...

I suppose you know what you mean, I don't . Could you elaborate for my education?

When have used absolutes? You simply can't address the scientific arguments by IDers and creationists that tear evolution to pieces with common sense, and without bailing out with insults to the creationist.

Ah common sense like "Negros are lazy and Christians are biggots.", not much of an argument. Can you slowly type your tearing apart of natural selection so that the slow witted amongst us pesants can understand you. i have seen some assertions but I don't see evidence.

People reading this are probably smart enough to see there is trouble in Evolutionland and desperate tactics are a good indicator of this.

Not like the trouble Christians have being followers of Christ, so much hatred, so much anger. So much fear and lack of faith. Are you a mustard seed?

 

[Dancing David]

You are a liar. This has been an offered source of the mysterious disappearance of dinos.

perhaps it was a small asteroid. And it threw a large pyroclastic cloud.

Then why use the fossil record to record millions of years of time. That is simply deluding.

How old is Mt Etna?

If you deny the existence of polystrate fossils, you made my point that evolutionists don't know squat about fossils. You fired a mortar into you own camp.

Shows us the evidence, care to cite your sources, for those amongst us poor unenlightened pagans who haven't a clue about what you are saying. Please show us the evidence to show that a 'polystrate fossils' demonstrate squat about fossils for me.

 

[Dancing David]

Could you show us the testable evidence for string theory or multiverses?

How old is Mt. Etna?

 

[Complexity]

rittjc - You're not very good at this.

You don't understand much, you're not very likable, and you probably aren't very sexy.

I don't care how much you claim to like guys, the GBLT community hereby rejects your membership application.

We have standards.

 

[Complexity]

Speaking of having standards, one of the many benefits of ignoring T'ai Chi is that I keep forgetting that he exists.

For once, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Shows us the evidence, care to cite your sources, for those amongst us poor unenlightened pagans who haven't a clue about what you are saying. Please show us the evidence to show that a 'polystrate fossils' demonstrate squat about fossils for me.

They're pretty cool actually. Of course they don't indicate what rittjc wants them to.

Polystrate Fossils

 

[Wowbagger]

By replacing a gene, you are talking about an incredibly complex change in sequences of codons to produce the right amino acids, to produce the right proteins that produce the right cells that produce the right genes. (snip)

You are assuming this complexity is necessary for the argument. All I was pointing out is that a single-point mutation could change one's eye color, regardless of how the genes are expressed.
Thus, your claim "If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent." is refuted. I emphasized the most important word, to clarify where you went wrong.

That too would have nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection destroys possibilities.

Natural selection is not quite as simple as that.

Mutations, and genetic drift create the opportunity for new possibilities to occur.

Here is a brief article responding to some of your claims about mutations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
This article makes reference to experimental results. So far, nothing you have written has done so.

Also, you ignored the fact that you "replaced" the gene. You didn't add it.

Okay, in that example I gave, you are right. That does not mean new genes can never be added to the genome. Perhaps I can point to some examples where this has happened:

Some can be found in this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Which points to lots of experimental results!

If you have the time, you can read this other article, which is long, but explains a lot about how the number of chromosomes can change over time: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

Natural selection kills off the "weaker" so thats why the weaker never become stronger in another context. You wipe out the possibility of the others. In one context, one life form has a benefit over the other. But in other contexts, the opposite is true. So there was no "absolute better, no absolute winner or loser". There is simply the chance one benefits in the first context but in the second context they are both dead. It just depends on the situation you are in. To say the weaker in context one has nothing to add and must move out of the way, if the tables turn, the stronger becomes the weaker and dies whereas the one opportunistically killed of, would have survived.

I think your wording is a little more difficult to comprehend than mine, but I think I catch your drift. You are claiming the currently-weaker get killed off, before they have the chance to show they can survive in future situations where the currently-stronger would become the ones to get killed off.

That is true, to a certain degree, but that is why it is important to understand where new genetic variation comes from. Do a little research on the subject, examine the experimental results, and see for yourself how it is possible.

You think in too much in absolutes.

First of all, I was restating your claim so others could understand what you meant. I was not trying to defend it.

And secondly, that "thinking in absolutes" could be one of your problems, not mine. Perhaps you are not familiar with my history, but I have been known to fight for provisional knowledge and science, and against absolutist ideologies, for quite a while.
Meanwhile, your insistence on God an absolute creator is blinding you to the power of the investigations science has made, and continues to make.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong. And how could you have been an evolutionist and know virtually no actual facts about it?


Wrong. Except for the double negative "not foundation-less".


Wrong.

For the record, I disagree with Zygote's tactics, here. You should make an effort to explain why they are wrong, or at least point to an article that responds to the claims that are wrong.

Don't just say "wrong, wrong, wrong." Only fundies should use tactics like that!

Reasonably intelligent people actually investigate and study things before they make claims about their function.

Although, this point is worth emphasizing.