Natural selection refuted

[Willamena]

I've read the first article. It doesn't refute natural selection --rather, what is referred to as "wrong" is the image of natural selection, which is actually growing and shaping. This is a good thing.

"What all this evidence shows is that we need a much more subtle and nuanced understanding of natural selection," Shenk says. "I think that's inevitably going to happen among scientists..."

This "nuanced understanding" version of natural selection has got a distinctly karmic feel.

 

[painted wolf]

It's also got a more genuinely Darwinian feel... Darwin never suggested that natural selection was the only evolutionary force at work. Just that it was one of the most important.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Says who? You are saying unfavorable traits such as someone inheriting down symdrome or a liver disease is not unfavorable?, you are saying it is a good thing then?..... All inherited diseases decrease the probability of reproduction.

That's how natural selection works, EA. Traits are selected or deleted through reproductive success. "Unfavorable" means unfavorable to reproduction.How can you not grasp this most basic of concepts?
Not all "defects" hinder reproductive success.

Well, to start with, everybody knows that something has to be
Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection.

You're completely wrong here. It isn't random chance, it's selective breeding. Are all our examples of the process just going in one ear and out the other? You complain about online ad hom, but your unbelievable and apparently deliberate obtuseness just invites it.

Well, to start with, everyone knows that something has to be

needed before it is put together, or made. To say it another way, the
first step in getting something new made—is realizing that it needs
to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.​

What!? [it just gets more and more bizarre] That makes no sense at all. Things are made and unmade everyday by purely natural processes -- and you know this.
​

​

Is this a fantasy? A fat dog and skinny dog walk walking down the street? really? You have seen this? and also it is illegal to have a dog without a lead on the road, they would be with a mentor and or owner etc.
grate in the road? unlikely but even if there was, it would be well cealed off.

This, EA, is what I mean by willful obtuseness.

Just out of curiosity, what is your explanation for diversity and change in the world? Magic?

 

[Alceste]

Seven pages! There is no explanation or argument effective against willful ignorance. Let someone recommend a decent book. She or he will read it or not. Until then, we're waisting our time.

I don't do this to convince true believers, but to rebut their false claims and misinformation for the benefit of the whole internet. It's like picking up dog poop - you don't do it for the dog.

I'd never have this debate via PM. THAT would be a waste of time.

 

[EarthAlive]

Seyorni not to be rude but your own religion based on what is in the vedic texts, says nothing is random, says everything is preplanned and guided spiritually. so much for this randomness you talk about. you are not making any sense opposing your own vedic texts.

 

[Alceste]

Seyorni not to be rude but your own religion based on what is in the vedic texts, says nothing is random, says everything is preplanned and guided spiritually. so much for this randomness you talk about. you are not making any sense opposing your own vedic texts.

Seyorni is not a fundamentalist, obviously.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's like picking up dog poop - you don't do it for the dog.

Nor do I encourage the wilfully ignorant to walk their dogma around without a pooper-scooper.

 

[painted wolf]

Seyorni not to be rude but your own religion based on what is in the vedic texts, says nothing is random, says everything is preplanned and guided spiritually. so much for this randomness you talk about. you are not making any sense opposing your own vedic texts.

I suppose it's no surprise that you have read the vedic texts as comprehensively as you have the scientific research on Evolution.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Seyorni not to be rude but your own religion based on what is in the vedic texts, says nothing is random, says everything is preplanned and guided spiritually. so much for this randomness you talk about. you are not making any sense opposing your own vedic texts.

Oooo! A tu quoque? An unexpected parry!

Reality's different at different levels, EA. This is a level three discussion, no metaphysics needed.

I'm not really religious, EA. I could alternately post my religion as string theory or manyworlds quantum theory.

 

[Skwim]

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

Common folk would say something like this: “Now, really, we
want an answer that makes sense. It is obvious that nothing makes​

itself. How did plants and animals first come into existence?”

Well, to start with, everybody knows that something has to be

needed before it is put together, or made. To say it another way, the
first step in getting something new made—is realizing that it needs
to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.
But right here, natural selection drops out of the picture—for​

unthinking randomness never feels the need for anything.

The reason that phrase, “natural selection,” sounds so able to do the job—is because it has a little word, “selection,” tacked on as part of its name. Although that was a very clever thing to do, it makes “natural selection” a built-in lie. For nothing mindless can select! This is because it cannot think.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev-PDF/Sci-Ev-29.pdf​

​

Nice source you've got there: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev-PDF/Sci-Ev-29.pdf


​

CLICK ON↑
​

Let's see we have:

Natural remedies
Natural minerals and other special nutrients
126 healing herbs
Simple water therapy treatments

​

Oh yes, and:

Science vs evolution
​

Because the first place one should go to find reliable information on science and evolution is your local religious Naturopathic organization, which also puts

out a
​

CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
An astounding amount of scientific evidence disproving evolutionary theory has been uncovered.

and goes into such crap as
​

1: History of Evolutionary Theory How modern science got into this problem (3 parts)
2: The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas (4 parts)
3: The Origin of the Earth Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state
4: The Age of the Earth Why the Earth is not millions of years old (2 parts)


​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Y The mechanism which drives evolution is a form of aquired characteristics, aka neolarmarckism. - Not based on mutation.

Which mechanism are you talking about? There are multiple mechanisms that drive evolution. Some are internal and some are external.

EDIT: Never mind....no longer with us....

 

[painted wolf]

The sad thing is, even "neolamarckism" requires mutations and natural selection.

wa:do

 

[Straw Dog]

The sad thing is, even "neolamarckism" requires mutations and natural selection.

wa:do

Maybe we should just ask an actual biologist to begin with when we're unsure about something in the theory or law of evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The sad thing is, even "neolamarckism" requires mutations and natural selection.

Being a "neolamarckist" must be very lonely. Neither side in the evolution vs. creation debate would want to have anything to do with you.

 

[painted wolf]

Being a "neolamarckist" must be very lonely. Neither side in the evolution vs. creation debate would want to have anything to do with you.

They are like that guy in every party that no one likes but somehow always ends up being invited anyway.

They are pretty popular with creationists (at least to their faces)... Lamarkism is all about "self betterment" you succeed because you try really hard and want it enough. Not because of some icky godless "nature". The creationists love that stuff.

Evolutionists are begrudgingly tolerant of them because things like Eppigenetics are very loosely Lamarkian. Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the stuff they talk about is pretty loopy.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Evolutionists are begrudgingly tolerant of them because things like Eppigenetics are very loosely Lamarkian. Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the stuff they talk about is pretty loopy.

I read an article about epigenetic inheritance which stated that some of the tags could actually survive from one generation to the next rather than being the result of direct/indirect exposure.
Now, my knowledge of genetics only go so far, so I'm wondering, has this been evidentially shown to be correct, or is this merely a workable hypothesis at the moment?

 

[painted wolf]

I read an article about epigenetic inheritance which stated that some of the tags could actually survive from one generation to the next rather than being the result of direct/indirect exposure.
Now, my knowledge of genetics only go so far, so I'm wondering, has this been evidentially shown to be correct, or is this merely a workable hypothesis at the moment?

Some eppigenetic changes can last a couple generations... usually by changing the storage pattern of our DNA backbone.

Smoking for example has eppigenetic influence on your grandchildren. Negatively impacting their health and fetal development.

wa:do

 

[PennyKay]

Right, I have no problem with people who believe in God, or people who don't generally follow science, but what I do resent is when people like EarthAlive comes along with the attitude of 'all your years of science, research and evidence is rubbish because this book written however many thousands of years ago say so'. It's pathetic, ignorant, foolish and insulting.

This is not to insult EarthAlive, but to suggest that when you make posts on threads, do your research, read the articles that you quote fully and don't just copy and paste other peoples words when you make posts. It may stop you looking such a fool.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is not to insult EarthAlive, but to suggest that when you make posts on threads, do your research, read the articles that you quote fully and don't just copy and paste other peoples words when you make posts. It may stop you looking such a fool.

Dream on ...

 

[PennyKay]

Dream on ...

Ah touche, you never know though, it may work )(