Question Evolution!

Well since your "reference" appears to be fatuous and dishonest nonsense, perhaps you have a little more work to do round here. It's amazing how much effort you people put in to failing to understand what is, after all, a very simple concept.Wouldn't it be easier just to understand it?Let's start at the beginning. Within a population, some animals are better adapted than others to the task of reproducing their genes. These animals will therefore have a statistical tendency to reproduce their genes with greater frequency than those worse adapted to this task.Do you:(a) Admit this.
(b) Not understand this.
(c) Deny this. (And if so, why?)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We'd be keen on hearing your feedback if you'd be so kind. What is difficult about it? How can we improve it? I would have thought that EvCForum, a forum designed specifically to debate Evolution and Creationism would be a more suitable venue to debate than a blog. Then you came to the wrong place. We are long bored of people, especially creationists, plopping down a link to something as if it conclusively proves their point and then leaving. This is a debate board, where we debate. So debate or leave. With all due respect, and all. That's just saying the same thing twice, it doesn't make it circular. Natural selection is the process by which alleles which lend themselves to replication better than other competing alleles increase in frequency in a population. This process 'naturally' selects for 'fit' alleles. By extension (when we realize the relationship between genome and phenome) this generally results in selecting for phenotypes that are more fit to survive and reproduce (there are exceptions to this, but they can be understood in terms of the theory). You are right that it is almost trivially obvious, but some people really have a problem with the obvious, when it is pointed out to them and it disagrees with dearly held beliefs about the world.You'd be right in saying that survival of the survivors is essentially a tautologous position, but hopefully you will one day learn that natural selection is a little more interesting than that - but it is as inevitable as any tautology. We have observed that alleles have changed in frequency based on their relative capacities for replication. Therefore we have observed natural selection in play. You can deny these observations if you want, and try and convince yourself that there is something terribly illogical about better replicators replicating more frequently that less good replicators or good reproducers out reproducing poor ones - but you'd be wrong.Anyway, when lots of people reply to a single post it is sometimes called 'dogpiling' around here. It isn't always a pleasant experience, so my apologies for that. On the other hand, your arrogant attitude kind of opens you up to that kind of response. If you stick around, perhaps you will learn humility as well as something about biology.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh please let me paraphrase that as my sig line. It'll read

You didn't produce any "reasoning". You gave an example of what you mean by "just so story telling", namely taking the observation of evidence predicted by a theory as evidence for that theory. The rest of us call this "the scientific method", but you are of course free to call it whatever you like.

Hello fellow EVC members,I would like to send an email to CMI on behalf of the members here.I would like to extend an open off for them to come to this site to discuss the claims made in their 15 questions for Evolutionists brochure.The offer to debate is curious as the blog linked does not have a debate section.As this is a debate site, specifically set up for debate and specifically set up to debate this issue, it would seem the obvious choice for a debate concerning this issue.The offer put forward by Jimmy Stephens is - I would like to contact the website as suggested by Jimmy and put forward an offer to support their claims.I will be mentioning the 15 questions and this challenge on other pages as well as youtube channels (eg Potholer54, thunderf00t, AronRa, Jinn & Tonic, The Magic Sandwich show, the Thinking Athiest, The Athiest Experience, maybe even Shockofgod etc etc etc). I would encourage others here to advertise this challenge as much as possible. I will add a message everywhere I find these 15 questions with a link back to EvC.Here is the email that I will be sending. As it is on behalf of members here, I wanted to give it 2 or 3 days before sending in order for members to offer suggestions or complaints.Christian Ministries International,An individual named Jimmy Stephens has posted a message on the evolution/creation debate forum commonly known as EvCforum ( EvC Forum: Home Page ). Jimmy advised that he was part of a grass roots movement titled 'Question Evolution!' and directed us to "15 questions which evolutionists can not adequately answer". It is with great pleasure that I inform you that we can answer these questions.
Jimmy Stephens already has a profile under the name Anel Vadren but feel free to start your own profile. If you are interested in putting your pressing questions to rest, please accept our offer to answer them.I repeat this claim on behalf of interested members of EvC forum
that the 15 questions for evolutionists put forward by Creation Ministries International in their 'Question Evolution!' campaign can be answered.We are prepared to support this claim in open and honest debate on the publically accesible and viewable forum page EvC Forum: Home Page .Are you prepared to have your questions answered?Regards,Interested members of EvC forumThat is the invite I would like to send CMI.If they accept, it will be interesting to see them support their position.Silence will be pretty telling as well.What do you think?

Now I know how CMI feels with the comment section underneath their article.If either one of you could make an attempt to answer the 15 questions that would be cool. Or keep avoiding them and making comments totally unrelated to the OP.Either way is good. Tho, the way you are both handling the 15 questions speaks volumes.This is the Coffee house after all. No explanations or refutations necessary.If you can't do it you can't do it. It's Cool. That's why those 15 questions are making a lot of headway. Because when presented, you avoid them and call them silly while changing the subject, like both of you(and others) have done.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hello again Chuck.We could use more words to answer the questions, but the answers given would essentially boil down to "it isn't", "it doesn't" and other variations of those. See Message 29 for answers to all of the questions.If you could point to an answer that you think is wrong, or should be expanded upon, I'm sure people here would be willing to oblige. I suggest taking 1 question at a time, to avoid making it all just a great big mess.[lurker mode re-engaged]

The answers may be found in this thread. As you discovered by the process known as "daydreaming"? Or how?

Sorry but putting your evolutionistic spin on those questions does nothing to answer them.

Answering them does, however, answer them. You see those things that answer the questions? Those are called "answers", 'cos of them answering things.

Can you provide the evidence that natural selection is responsible for this?Let's go one by one starting with question #1.Show the evidence that supports Natural Selection as the mechanism for this. May as well do #2 also since you respond with the same unsupported answer.Also explain chemical evolution too. How where when did it start?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, how did it happen? This question has been answered.Next question. Ditto. The question doesn't ask for a detailed dissertation on how we know the answer, it just asked for the answer.Next question.

Chuck, I gave you a respectful answer to question 10 in Message 48 and you have ignored it.Please do not complain about a lack of answers when you have ignored those answers that you have received.Mutate and Survive

I didn't ignore it I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Yes it was respectful and thanks and I appreciate the thoughtout answer.

Huh? Words games?Sorry I think your tired Doc. I was responding to bluegenes answer to question one where he sites NS. Maybe you wanna go back and read his answer.Your short winded replies don't answer the question. Evidence Doc...evidence.This is exaclty why Percy didn't put this in the Science section because there is none.Next.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.