The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Hi, Barbara.Tip: if you're not responding to something in a specific post, use the "Gen Reply" at the very bottom left or top right of the screen, instead of the "Reply" button from a specific message. The "Reply" button at the bottom of a message is just for responding to the content of that particular message. The words have nothing to with why people are confused. The words "selection" and "direction" have always meant what they are used to mean in the context of this debate. It is simply that a lack of rigorous thinking causes people to not realize this.Selection: options are presented, and some options are taken, while other options are not.Direction: only some options (often just one) are ever presented or allowed.Maybe people have trouble understanding it because, in the evolutionary scenario, people are not the selectors, but the options, and, when you're just an option, selection feels like direction.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

T. H. Morgan goes back even further 1915-1916.

quote:

---

After eliminating some misunderstandings and explaining in detail the new science of Mendelian heredity and its chromosomal basis, Morgan concludes that "the evidence shows clearly that the characters of wild animals and plants, as well as those of domesticated races, are inherited both in the wild and in domesticated forms according to the Mendel's Law". "Evolution has taken place by the incorporation into the race of those mutations that are beneficial to the life and reproduction of the organism".^[24].

​

24. A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, Princeton University Press, (1916), pp 193-194.

---

I would already give G. Mendel credit or C. Darwin.

Natural selection has not disappeared, it performs its primary role - the stabilization of the genome. MacroDevolution, which began in end of Vend, also continue until there remain only a highly specialized dead-end species. But evolution and macro-evolution was not at all. This invention, which creationists once deftly introduced in biology to endlessly criticize this clumsy its design and thus engage in missionary work. Very convenient.
Evolutionists, creationists know that if you compare the fact of the eye with a lens and the mechanisms of accommodation in modern jellyfish, polychaetes, and some terrestrial carnivorous tropical turbellarians, (plus one molecular genetic work: Just a moment...), then the whole theory of evolution from primary prmitiv monads to the "crown of nature" simply falls to pieces. Therefore, in trying to debate these facts do not mention it. For the same reason, try to conceal the fact that modern cestodes and perrier-eminent Venda organisms morphologically alike as two peas in a pod. Quite the same bilateral symmetry of glide reflection, the same Scolex and strobes! Only Vendian cestodes were not parasites - living freely. And this is why evolutionists, creationists silent it fact that if you study the imprints of scolex, there can be found with imprints of the eye mit lens and tentacles with suckers! And then another, and a heavy brain ortogon type ... And this is also the potential to break the whole theory.
Spacenoology Edited by Rakshas, : No reason given.Edited by Rakshas, : No reason given.

I don't know where you come up with the point that vendian eyes would disprove evolution, it puts a stamp on natural section. It helps explain why some post Vendian creatures have no eyes or have differently evolved eyes. Secondly there is no such thing as devolution, evolution is not directional.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

There is when you believe that everything was created some 6,000 years ago and that there was a "fall" from which everything is "devolving."Of course there is nothing in biology or evolution anywhere resembling that but that doesn't stop the trve believers.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Would they be then, devobelivers, since they believe in devo-beliefs

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Biblical literalists.They have no interest in science except to destroy those parts that contract their beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I - not "them". I am not a creationist and an evolutionist. I'm an devolutionist. My guess is that the peptide-nucleic technology - a product applied engineering design of several billion years ago, and then under the action of natural selection, divided into many species, began to lose its universality and devolve to specialize in different niches. And I have a good reason for this hypothesis.SpacenoologyJust as multicellularity - the product is applied socio-engineering design - a little more than a billion years ago. Also lost starting universalism, specialized by natural selection. For this hypothesis, too, have a good reason. SpacenoologyReligion is not to blame. But when the evolutionist calls the "science" its speculative, false "evolution" - is an aggressive religion that hinders science.Well, of course, when the evolutionist, as a creationist, is a polemical impasse, their arguments - the indictments cliche - is irrelevant to the scientific controversy. This was in the Soviet era Lysenko.

Logically, the eye with the lens, and several alternative mechanisms exist for the accommodation of some already exist in Wend, and species not having the eyes were degradation products in those niches, which did not require sight. This is also observed in our time of cave fish and salamanders.

I am new here and think this will be the place for this post.
I have seen several times in news and online now of Polar/grizzly or Kodiak, brown bear hybrids being found in the Canadian north and in AK. Several have been shot by different hunters and DNA confirms the polar bears are breeding with other bears, mostly grizzlies. I feel it is good proof of evolution. The polar bears habitat is on the decline and they are spending more time closer to grizzlies and are breeding with them. Now this new bear may go nowhere and just end up as an oddball, much like the hybrid Mule/whitetail deer. But if it can better take advantage of a new and changing environment better than the polar of grizzly it may become the dominate species. Polar bears as we know them may only be left in zoos in 100 years maybe?? The new hybrid may push the grizzlies farther south?? If the new hybrid has more of a tolerance for warmer weather it may migrate south as its polar bear cousin is so adapted for life on ice it cannot. I think this represents a great example of Bio-diversity through evolution.

Perhaps this would show how the natural selection piece works, but not the random mutation part unless these new bears have traits that don't come from their parents.

Are you using a computer program to translate your thoughts from your native language into English?

Hi, Fearandloathing.Welcome to EvC! I hope you enjoy it here!I don't think we can rely on "what if" stories as evidence for evolution. If what you predict actually does happen, then it would be a fine example of natural selection (though not necessarily mutation, as NoNukes amply explained).However, just reading this Wikipedia page on hybrid bears, it seems that there have been only two observed instances of hybridization in the wild (one of which was second-generation).While it certainly makes the scenario you suggest at least plausible, with such a small data set, any attempt to draw conclusions about evolution from this would be exceedingly premature, and we can't use what might happen in the future as evidence for something we propose to have been happening throughout history.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Well I am no scientist ...lol a under-employed plumber actually.
I nor anyone could say yet if this will become a new bear or just a few freaks of nature?? But Having new traits ...I would think it will be years,,,many generations before these oddities might become a new species which doesn't breed with other bears. That may never happen at all and the polar bears may just be re-absorbed into the grizzly bears so to speak. By doing that though you would be changing the northern grizzlies with the addition of polar DNA and maybe some of their traits as well.
If this new hybrid does make it, then watching it and its develop may prove interesting. Only time will tell. But if a bear could do what a grizzly does and hunt in and around any seasonal ice would probably do ok...not sure I will have to look but I don't think polar bears hibernate... I will look...but that could be good or maybe bad...lol like I said too many ifs...just thought I would run it up the pole an see who salutes

LOL thanks...I was writing my next post as you wrote this one...I agree with you completly...well I googled hybrid bears and found a coule wiki may not??? who knows but thanks for intelligent replies...