Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 247 of 276 (123464)
07-09-2004 7:43 PM


Natural selection isn't WRONG... The big conceptual problem is that natural selection is a destructive process and not a constructive one.
That means you could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could construct a new building with a wrecking ball and dynamite. The theory of evolution amounts to a claim that new species arise from old via sheer, dumb luck, i.e. mutation, and then natural selection weeds out the unfit from all the multitudinous new species thus formed. You can see this process at work by walking outdoors, and noticing all the new species of animals, birds, insects and what not which are constantly arising via mutations. They say that a little bit of LSD or Columbian reefer helps (in seeing them)...

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2004 2:23 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 249 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 1:09 AM redwolf has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 250 of 276 (123686)
07-11-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Steen
07-11-2004 1:09 AM


I duly note the inherent dishonesty in the very foundation of your argument...
Help for Evolutionists:
Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer James Watson New Scientist ^
Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured.
On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life. The breakthrough revealed how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next and revolutionised biology and medicine.
But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity.
"If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent."
Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
But other scientists have questioned both the ethics and plausibility of his suggestions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 1:09 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 2:24 AM redwolf has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 253 of 276 (123728)
07-11-2004 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Steen
07-11-2004 2:24 AM


Re: And here is another prize post of nonsense
I reply to serious comments in serious manner, and to statements like:
quote:
I duly note the inherent dishonesty in the very foundation of your argument...
in the manner you observed. Your choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 2:24 AM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 2:23 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 254 of 276 (123733)
07-11-2004 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Wounded King
07-11-2004 6:00 AM


quote:
So you are saying that advantageous mutations are not retained in populations significantly more frequently than disadvantageous mutations, thats a pretty good claim and would pretty effectively put a hole in most theories of how natural selection operates if true.
In real life, mutations which involve changes large enough to conceivably lead to new kinds of animals all have names, such as Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome etc. etc. Ever notice the women going door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research aimed at eliminating mutations, and not for research aimed at causing them? Think there might be a reason for that?
Other than that, the amounts of time it would take to spread ANY kinds of mutations, "beneficial" or otherwise, around our planet sufficiently to create our present biosphere has been shown to be impossible, i.e. to involve trillions to quadrillions of years and not the 4 billion which is claimed or the million or so which is likely the reality of the situation:
http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/default_old.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Wounded King, posted 07-11-2004 6:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by biochem_geek, posted 07-11-2004 12:35 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 259 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:09 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 257 of 276 (123748)
07-11-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by biochem_geek
07-11-2004 12:35 PM


Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
> Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
And all any of them involve is germs mutating into the same kind of germs.
Germs do not interest me. Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.
Anything else is BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by biochem_geek, posted 07-11-2004 12:35 PM biochem_geek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:13 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 4:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 262 of 276 (123794)
07-11-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Steen
07-11-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
>What is a new "kind" of animal?
A new kind of animal would be one with new organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with old ones, a new basic plan for survival, and all of the instincts and skills necessary for survival via the new plan. One example would be baleen, or whalebone, as opposed to the kinds of teeth which killer whales have and which whale ancestors presumably had. Another example would be wings, as opposed to arms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:13 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by CK, posted 07-11-2004 8:29 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 10:58 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 268 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:06 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5791 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 264 of 276 (123824)
07-11-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by CK
07-11-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
A new kind of creature with a new basic plan for existence might have some utterly new features, wings, a beak, flight feathers, whatever, but these all have to work together or they're useless and they have to work together with organs which are left unchanged from the previous state as well. This is basically a complex systems integration requirement.
Suppose you're a velociraptor or a lizard and God or the mutation genie decides to give you some wings. You might think that was cool for about five seconds until you thought about it, but after that, you'd come to the realization that you were totally ****ed. In order for the wings to be anything other than a curse, you will also need a beak, since you no longer have arms and hands to feed yourself with, you'll need flight feathers and the cute system birds have for rotating flight feathers, a fan-like tail with tail feathers, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, and basically about a baker's dozen new organs, and the instincts and skills to use them.
In other words, just getting the wings, or just getting any of the other features by itself, which is all mutations could ever do for you, would be a fatal affliction. That in fact is the sort of thing which the ladies walking door to door for the Mothers' March of Dimes are working to prevent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by CK, posted 07-11-2004 8:29 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by biochem_geek, posted 07-12-2004 12:03 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 269 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:10 PM redwolf 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