EvC Forum: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2499 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 232 of 323 (810434)
05-29-2017 12:01 PM

Reply to: Message 231 by Davidjay
05-27-2017 6:57 PM

Clearly, it's impossible to debunk selection

Davidbat writes:

What was our ancestor,

Batmen (Homo-baticus - see artist's impression below).

We have conclusive evidence of this from atavisms, like the man/bat transformers of South-eastern Europe who sleep in coffins and live in huge gothic castles, and in other humans, like your good self, who are rather obviously batty.

Davidbatty writes:

... and who was their ancestor or father.

Bats, obviously.

Nearly fifty batty posts, now. So, when are you going to start debunking selection?

Count Batula

This message is a reply to:
	Message 231 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 6:57 PM		Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 233 by Davidjay, posted 05-29-2017 7:56 PM		bluegenes has replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2499 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

(2)

Message 234 of 323 (810472)
05-30-2017 2:47 AM

Reply to: Message 233 by Davidjay
05-29-2017 7:56 PM

Re: Clearly, it's impossible to debunk selection

Davidjay writes:

I agree, you dont know who our ancestors are or were.
Thanks for further proof, that you can not answer that question.

If you evolutionists knew, you would have stated such, but you do not know.

I *** evolutionists ****

We descend from Santa Claus. If you are going to talk about biology like an ignorant child, then you deserve children's answers.

In the O.P., you promise that you are going to debunk selection. So, the people you call "evolutionists" have presented you with several examples of natural selection in action, like this one of environmental adaptation in Oldfield Mice and you haven't debunked any of them.

"Natural selection" is the environmental influence on population groups of organisms. It's a real, observable phenomenon.

So, you've set yourself the impossible task of trying to show that something which does exist doesn't exist.

Instead of continuing to beat around the bush and change the subject, why not take the honest route, admit that natural selection happens, and confess that your O.P. was a result of your ignorance of biology?

If not, start "debunking".

This message is a reply to:
	Message 233 by Davidjay, posted 05-29-2017 7:56 PM		Davidjay has not replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2499 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 290 of 323 (811560)
06-09-2017 9:19 AM

Reply to: Message 264 by Vlad
06-07-2017 9:40 AM

Life in a void?

Vlad writes:

And the final stroke: biological evolution needs no natural selection at all This paradoxical circumstance is also well known long since. Enjoy.

Which functions would be retained?

In which void could it take place?

Virtual self-replicators in a void would have no function, and all variants would be equal. They would change over time in a completely random fashion. That's evolution without NS.

Chemical self-replicators can only exist in a physical environment in which they must have function, and variants will not all be equal, so environmental influence (natural selection) is inevitable in a life system.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 264 by Vlad, posted 06-07-2017 9:40 AM		Vlad has not replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2499 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 300 of 323 (811805)
06-12-2017 9:47 AM

Reply to: Message 298 by Vlad
06-12-2017 8:25 AM

Re: Long range

Vlad writes:

Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random.

So, let's look at the long term. You believe that complex eyes would evolve just as easily in the complete absence of light as they would in its presence, and that eyes would be equally well preserved, in the long term, in the absence of light as they would be in its presence.

Vlad writes:

Believing warms the heart

Yours must be boiling over...

This message is a reply to:
	Message 298 by Vlad, posted 06-12-2017 8:25 AM		Vlad has not replied

bluegenes

Member (Idle past 2499 days)

Posts: 3119

From: U.K.

Joined: 01-24-2007

Normal Thread Display

Message 310 of 323 (812356)
06-16-2017 7:09 AM

Reply to: Message 304 by Vlad
06-14-2017 8:36 AM

Re: Eyes issue

bluegenes writes:

Vlad writes:

Indeed, natural selection appears non-random process, here and now. Yet, in the long (that is, in the evolutionary) range, Darwinian NS proves quite random.

Vlad writes:

Bluegenes tends to ascribe some stupid beliefs to me — evidently so that to demonstratively falsify them.

If you didn't mean what I characterized you as implying, that functional features like complex eyes can be produced without light, what did you mean by "Darwinian NS proves quite random"?

Vlad writes:

Bluegenes also seems to be obsessed with the eyes issue.

Obsessed?

Vlad writes:

O.K. let’s talk eyes. Take a proverbial example of the so-called box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora (the phylum Cnidaria, the class Cubozoa) which possesses 24 eyes, housed in four rhopalia. Four of the 6 eyes in each rhopalium are simple photo sensors, but two have light-focusing lenses. The primitive creature has elaborate camera eyes with actual retinas, corneas, and lenses!

The thing is the box jellyfish possesses amazingly elaborate eyes while it has no brain at all, and so this bizarre creature, in fact, cannot perceive the images generated by its eyes. Indeed, we see rather with our brains than with our eyes. After all, a photographic camera lens properly builds images, yet the device does not see anything.

Well, what would Darwinists invent in order to elucidate the strange case of Tripedalia cystophora eyes? Has non-random NS tooled box jellyfish up with the excellent yet absolutely useless eyes?

No. Natural selection has tooled up the box jellyfish with very useful eyes. You like analogies, so consider "smart" C.C.T.V. cameras that can react to certain complex incoming patterns of light due to programs that are probably far simpler than a box jellyfish nervous system.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 304 by Vlad, posted 06-14-2017 8:36 AM		Vlad has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,432 Year: 3,689/9,624 Month: 560/974 Week: 173/276 Day: 13/34 Hour: 0/6