|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2357 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What is your alternate explanation for the selection demonstrated by the peppered moth example? Try reading the first line of my post Message 240quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
According to Jerry Coyne it does! The ToE does not say that all life comes from a common ancestor, ..."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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
jar writes:
You mean in the chapter "What is Evolution" where he says
Your quote from Jerry Cone is no a description of the Theory of Evolution but rather a summation of the facts of evolution. quote: Kinda sounds like a description of the Theory of Evolution to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Similarly; Evolution would be disproven if the descendant of a moth was a non-moth.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024