Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 199 of 323 (808911)
05-14-2017 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by jar
05-14-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Does the theory of evolution require a gain of information?
According to the time stamps it took you nine minutes to read my post and formulate and type your reply. With such haste I can understand why you got it so wrong. I suggest you try again after some more thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 05-14-2017 8:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 05-14-2017 9:02 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 205 of 323 (808925)
05-14-2017 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Coyote
05-14-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Discovery Institute is creationist start to finish
Where in that 49 pages does it say they are a creationist organisation?
And what Federal Court are you referring to?
Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2017 10:18 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2017 12:23 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 207 of 323 (808934)
05-15-2017 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Coyote
05-15-2017 12:23 AM


Re: Discovery Institute is creationist start to finish
CRR: Where in that 49 pages does it say they are a creationist organisation?
Coyote: From page 2, describing the Center for Science and Culture (about 60% of their budget):
THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND CULTURE PROMOTES RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE SPONSORSHIP OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WRITING, THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, ARTICLES, REPORTS, AND CURRICULA, THE ORGANIZING OF SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES, PODCASTS, AND VIDEOS
Maybe I need my eyes checked but where in that quote does it say creation or any derivative of that word?
Perhaps you could tell me exactly what you think a Creationist believes? Do they, for instance believe that the Earth is billions of years old? or only thousands of years old? That life began as microbial life form that evolved into Humans and other complex organisms, or that God created each Kind separately?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2017 12:23 AM Coyote has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 240 of 323 (810681)
05-31-2017 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:34 AM


Creationists readily accept that selection happens. Selection by itself produces nothing new but it can produce a change in the frequency in existing traits in the population over time.
Darwin thought that each new variety would have the same amount of variability as the original so evolution could continue without restraint. Now we know from genetics that new varieties are produced by eliminating undesired/detrimental alleles so variability decreases as a result of selection. We can't blame Darwin for this error since he knew nothing of genetics.
The modern evolutionary view is that mutation can provide a constant source of new variations so that evolution can continue beyond the bounds of the original gene pool. Thus the Darwinian god of selection has been replaced by the god of mutation+selection.
However this view has been questioned for some time now.
quote:
Schtzenberger, Marcel P.(Mathematician)
‘Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution’, pp.73-75, Wistar Institute Symposium No. 5, 1967 (ed. Moorhead & Kaplan):
‘We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian (the present) theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.’
Even natural selection has been downplayed in recent years by theories of genetic drift, and epigenetics shows how adaptation does not even require any genetic change.
The evolutionary god of selection is long dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:34 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2017 9:25 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 243 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2017 10:41 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 244 of 323 (810714)
06-01-2017 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Tangle
05-31-2017 10:41 PM


What is your alternate explanation for the selection demonstrated by the peppered moth example?
Try reading the first line of my post Message 240
quote:
Creationists readily accept that selection happens. Selection by itself produces nothing new but it can produce a change in the frequency in existing traits in the population over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2017 10:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2017 1:38 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 246 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2017 5:10 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 251 of 323 (810802)
06-01-2017 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Tangle
06-01-2017 5:10 AM


Creationists readily accept that selection happens.
...
The evolutionary god of selection is long dead.
Tangle, if you think there is a contradiction between the first and last sentences of Message 240 try reading (and understanding) the bit in between.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2017 5:10 AM Tangle has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 252 of 323 (810803)
06-01-2017 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Davidjay
06-01-2017 9:30 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
The peppered moth is an example of equivocation used by evolutionists.
Evolution is true because we have witnessed evolution in the Peppered Moth.
implying that
[All living forms have come from a single common ancestor] is true because we have witnessed [a change in frequency of existing traits in a population over time] in the Peppered Moth.
This equivocation may not be intentional in many cases but the listener is led to believe that one follows from the other. This is a problem with the word having such a wide range of meanings.
Yes the Peppered moth shows evolution in the second sense but not in the first. The responsibility lies with the evolutionists to disambiguate the word "evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Davidjay, posted 06-01-2017 9:30 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 6:16 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 254 by Tangle, posted 06-02-2017 3:19 AM CRR has replied
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:20 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 256 of 323 (811088)
06-05-2017 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Davidjay
06-03-2017 6:10 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Biologists use the peppered moth as a clear example of one of the core aspects of evolutionary theory - natural selection.
Natural selection results in a change in the frequency of existing traits in a population over time.
Peppered Moths are normally white with black speckles across the wings, giving it its name. There is also a variety with almost black wings could be the result of a naturally occurring genetic mutation. The proportions of light and dark winged moths has varied considerably over time. One idea was that the colouration made the light form well camouflaged against lichen-covered tree trunks when it rests on them during the day; except that it has since been shown that they don't normally rest on tree trunks during the day. Still the correlation of colours with changes in air pollution suggests that was at least part of the cause.
Darwin called his theory Evolution by Natural selection; i.e. Evolution is not synonymous with Natural Selection. The type of selection shown in the Peppered Moth will never result in a new type of moth, let alone a non-moth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Davidjay, posted 06-03-2017 6:10 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2017 3:39 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:13 AM CRR has replied
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:27 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 257 of 323 (811089)
06-05-2017 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Tangle
06-02-2017 3:19 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
Tangle writes:
The ToE does not say that all life comes from a common ancestor, ...
According to Jerry Coyne it does!
"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009] (emphasis added)
Jerry Coyne is an esteemed evolutionary biologist and the author of "Why Evolution is True".
Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Tangle, posted 06-02-2017 3:19 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 06-05-2017 6:46 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 261 of 323 (811108)
06-05-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
06-05-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Peppered moths are color change and not evolutionary change
jar writes:
Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution.
You mean in the chapter "What is Evolution" where he says
quote:
In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can
be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth
evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-
replicating moleculethat lived more than a billion years ago; it then
branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and
the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural
selection.
Kinda sounds like a description of the Theory of Evolution to me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 06-05-2017 6:46 AM jar has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 262 of 323 (811109)
06-05-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
06-05-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
RAZD writes:
As this thread is about selection,
No, it is about the Evolutionary God of Selection, which is what I addressed in Message 240.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 8:43 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:21 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 273 of 323 (811439)
06-08-2017 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Taq
06-07-2017 12:27 PM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Taq writes:
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth.
Similarly;
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a fish was a non-fish.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of an amphibian was a non-amphibian.
Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a reptile was a non-reptile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2017 4:38 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 5:54 AM CRR has replied
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:40 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 284 of 323 (811483)
06-08-2017 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
06-08-2017 5:54 AM


Re: rate of change
A fish population evolving into an amphibian population takes (took) many generations
A amphibian population evolving into a reptile population takes (took) many generations
A reptile population evolving into a mammal population takes (took) many generations
Correct. That is what evolution says.
So over time the descendant of fish can become a non-fish, and the descendant of a moth a non-moth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2017 5:54 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 6:28 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 6:21 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 286 of 323 (811486)
06-08-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Taq
06-08-2017 10:40 AM


Re: Fire flies, cameleons
Our ancestors were jawed vertebrates, and we are jawed vertebrates. Still in the same kind.
And according the evolution theory that jawed vertebrate descended from a jawless invertebrate. So are we jawless invertebrates?
Edited by CRR, : Re-written

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 6:26 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 06-09-2017 10:40 AM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024