Natural selection refuted

[painted wolf]

Why didn't I see this before...

....Just as it crawled out of the puddle.... :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

it takes a lot of time

So you admit natural selection takes alot of time and it is not observable in human lifetime, therefore not testable by the scientific method. You are no different than a young earth creationist then, saying God came down and created everything.

 

[painted wolf]

You are now putting a limit on the number of generations? This is all down to what you think is it? Natural selection now has to exist only after two generations. LOl. Easy for you to dodge the question and make this up as you go along. Do you just make this up as you go along?, please see the front page where natural selection has been defined no mention of it having to be "after two generations".

Nope, I'm just exploring how little you actually understand the general concept of Natural Selection.

So far it's been a real trip.

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

general concept

concepts are not real.

 

[Valjean]

always existed.

Some examples of observed variation within recent historical memory, one by human selection, one natural:
The Silver Fox Experiment - YouTube
Evolution of the Peppered Moth - YouTube

So you admit natural selection takes alot of time and it is not observable in human lifetime, therefore not testable by the scientific method. You are no different than a young earth creationist then, saying God came down and created everything.

Natural selection has bee3n observed many times, EA. Even speciation's been observed.

 

[Alceste]

No, that's not evolution. That is one hypothesis or idea of evolution called neo-darwinism. As mentioned in my other thread, other mechanisms exist. These mutations that you talk about, nobody denies them, but they are nothing to do with this natural selection idea of the Darwinists. Look up the work of Pierre-Paul Grassé.

Yes, that is evolution. Are you saying you do not deny what I've just explained to you about evolution?

Please answer the question: Given that hundreds of new mutations occur in every generation, and that only mutations that inhibit reproduction are considered "harmful" in an evolutionary sense, can you see where your argument is flawed?

 

[outhouse]

is your education real?

 

[EarthAlive]

Yes, that is evolution. Are you saying you do not deny what I've just explained to you about evolution?

Please answer the question: Given that hundreds of new mutations occur in every generation, and that only mutations that inhibit reproduction are considered "harmful" in an evolutionary sense, can you see where your argument is flawed?

You explained to me the neo-darwinist intepretation of evolution, I do not deny what you have said about mutations, but these mutations you mention do not cause any type of evolution, I do not buy into the neo-darwinist interpretation. The mechanism which drives evolution is a form of aquired characteristics, aka neolarmarckism. - Not based on mutation.

 

[EarthAlive]

Some examples of observed variation within recent historical memory, one by human selection, one natural:
[youtube]YbcwDXhugjw[/youtube]
The Silver Fox Experiment - YouTube
[youtube]LyRA807djLc[/youtube]
Evolution of the Peppered Moth - YouTube


Natural selection has bee3n observed many times, EA. Even speciation's been observed.

I am not denying any of this, but from what I have studied none of this has anything to do with natural selection and none of those examples is causing or driving any kind of major evolution.

 

[Valjean]

But that's how it works. The dark or light peppered moths are naturally selected. New species come about when natural small variations within a population confer greater reproductive success, passing on the variation. As environmental conditions change, organisms adapt by this method. Entirely new organisms evolve through hundreds of small changes, over many generations.

The fox variation occurred by essentially the same mechanism, except engineered by people -- just as the Guernsey cows, chihuahuas and fancy chickens were selectively bred. However, you don't believe they were selectively bred and I assume you think doglike foxes have always existed, as well, and that the experiment's a hoax.

 

[Alceste]

You explained to me the neo-darwinist intepretation of evolution, I do not deny what you have said about mutations, but these mutations you mention do not cause any type of evolution, I do not buy into the neo-darwinist interpretation. The mechanism which drives evolution is a form of aquired characteristics, aka neolarmarckism. - Not based on mutation.

This is not an "interpretation" of evolution: What I have explained to you is the most basic concept of evolution, stripped bare of all its complexities - I've given you a summary so simple a literate child can understand it (I should know, I am a nanny for preschoolers).

To make it even simpler for you, we all differ from our parents to some degree. This is genetic mutation. When we differ so much that we can not reproduce (eg. we have a genetic defect that kills us before we reach puberty), we can not pass on our differences to our own children: our "mutations" are not passed on to the next generation.

So, given this apparently new information about what the theory of evolution actually consists of, are you now able to identify any of the flaws in your opening post?

 

[Skwim]

Both of these quotes are flat-out lies. Nowhere on natural selection page of Wikipedia does it say that unfavorable traits become less common.

Trouble is, EarthAlive lifted the quote from a silly PUBLICATION called:

"REFUTATION

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

NATURAL SELECTION

SHOWN TO BE WRONG"
​

​

which does list its source as wikipedia "(Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)," BUT, as we know, has no such quote; meaning that EarthAlive never bothered to check out the source his author, Colin Leslie Dean, listed. Interestingly, the owner of the site GAMAHUCHER PRESS "an independent publisher in the genres of COMPARATIVE RELIGION, POETRY, EROTICISM and PHILOSOPHY." provides a catalog of published works consisting of the writings of a single author: Colin Leslie Dean, or Dean in collaboration with others.

A few of Dean's other titles include

•The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

• Contentless Thought: case study in the meaninglessness of all views

•Erotic fairy tales

•Is your c*** hairy 2 ?

​

Which pretty much clears up the mystery of why the remarks in the OP are so incredibly mind numbing. GIGO.

 

[EarthAlive]

Trouble is, EarthAlive lifted the quote from a silly PUBLICATION called:

"REFUTATION

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

NATURAL SELECTION

SHOWN TO BE WRONG"
​

​

which does list its source as wikipedia "(Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)," BUT, as we know, has no such quote; meaning that EarthAlive never bothered to check out the source his author, Colin Leslie Dean, listed. Interestingly, the owner of the site GAMAHUCHER PRESS "an independent publisher in the genres of COMPARATIVE RELIGION, POETRY, EROTICISM and PHILOSOPHY." provides a catalog of published works consisting of the writings of a single author: Colin Leslie Dean, or Dean in collaboration with others.

A few of Dean's other titles include

•The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

• Contentless Thought: case study in the meaninglessness of all views

•Erotic fairy tales

•Is your c*** hairy 2 ?

​

Which pretty much clears up the mystery of why the remarks in the OP are so incredibly mind numbing. GIGO.

Let's not confuse things here, firstly that press company is not owned by Dean. Dean is a qualified scientist and poet, nothing to do with "erotic" fairytales or this other nonsense you have pasted which is an attack website. Note how Dean was listed in my references. Regarding the quote, it can be found on the two websites I already listed, wikipedia gets updated everyday, if you search for the quote in google, you get hits from about a year ago or so when the paper was written.

 

[not nom]

oh wow!! you win the interwebs

I have no words. just looking at the titles... so much lack of sanity. and the .pdf's are available, too

"THE DAUGHTERS OF LOT - THE DELETED VERSES" -> I dare not quote from it. LMAO. you should check it out though, the font is awesome :yes:

poor dude I guess :/

 

[not nom]

this other nonsense you have pasted which is an attack website.

what? how so? it's the website where the stuff is made available after all, how is that an attack? you are grasping for straws here it seems.

 

[outhouse]

its all spam in a can from this person

 

[jarofthoughts]

If accident dropped radioactive waste or some kind of chemical on 2000 people, the generations of those people would still have it, infact the bad traits would continue to be common, "natural selection" would not get rid of those traits, go and speak to some of the successive generations of the WW2 soldiers or Vietnam whos ancestors spent time working with chemicals or were hit by bombs or gases, this natural selection is a fairytale.

 

[painted wolf]

LoL... erotic poetry... hey, everyone needs a hobby.

Even if it is writing: "Cyber sex: wet dreams from cyberspace"

wa:

 

[Skwim]

Let's not confuse things here, firstly that press company is not owned by Dean.

Never said it was, but how do you know? And, if he doesn't own it then who does, mommy and daddy?

Dean is a qualified scientist and poet,

A "qualified" scientists?? What the hell is that? He only has a B.Sc.. And a "qualified poet?? So his B.Litt enables him to rhyme "orange." Big deal!

or this other nonsense you have pasted which is an attack website.

"NONSENSE"? !? Look it up and read it yourself. Better yet, just click on the links I provided. However, I am pleased that you regard the facts I turned up as qualifying as an attack. It shows just how damning they are.

Note how Dean was listed in my references.

As "Other references." Which is nice, but meaningless. You gave the source of the quote as Wikipedia with no indication it was outdated. Even Dean's own link is worthless.

Regarding the quote, it can be found on the two websites I already listed, wikipedia gets updated everyday, if you search for the quote in google, you get hits from about a year ago or so when the paper was written.

Sorry, but I'm not up to chasing mis-linked sources.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Flat out lie? It's right here:

Natural selection

It doesn't say anything like that on the main wikipedia page.

CliffsNotes CSET: Multiple Subjects - Jerry Bobrow, Stephen Fisher - Google Books

*facepalm*

Be more specific with sources in future. If I'd of known you were using cliffnotes as a source I wouldn't have bothered to call it a lie.