Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 106 of 323 (807980)
05-07-2017 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Davidjay
05-07-2017 11:07 AM


Re: memes are like genes, inheritable and selectable
Instincts are not from mutations, or from learned behaviours
Correct. We all agree.
Mutations do not bring on learned behaviours...
If you mean mutations do not "cause" learned behavior, then this is so obvious that we all agree.
and learned behaviours are not passed onto new generations of insects or humans.
We all agree with this also.
No one responding to you, is claiming any of the 3 things you just listed are passed on genetically or have anything to do with mutations.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST WROTE?
NONE OF US CLAIM OR THINK ANYTHING LEARNED BY ANY ANIMALS, INCLUDING HUMANS, ARE PASSED ON GENETICALLY OR ARE RELATED TO MUTATIONS.
GOT IT?
Instincts are implanted in the original species.
Now see, when you just make an unsupported declaration like this, you just demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. It is a completely pointless statement that undermines your credibility.
Birds do not learn to fly by the stars, nor do fish learn to smell their original rivers and streams, nor do the myriad of insticts and behaviours that define a KIND just happen to magically get into their DNA.
We agree that NO MAGIC WAS INVOLVED.
I repeat learned behaviour does not go into our genes, never has, never will. A species does not get more educated and brighter and more viable via mutations or supposed evolution.
AND I REPEAT, WE AGREE THAT LEARNED BEHAVIOR IS NOT ADDED TO OUR GENES.
Its just a theory in the minds of insect-ologists who have been in the fields way toooo long.
I prefer "bugologist." There is no such thing as too much field time to a true bugologist.
Sexual genes are not influenced by what happens to a species or KIND in their lifetime and in their experiences while alive.
I disagree, because the fate and longevity of sexual genes is directly affected by which organisms in a population survive and pass on more or fewer copies of their genes.
Sexual genes are directly affected by whether the individuals carrying them are selected for or against. We call this natural selection.
Mother Nature does not select as if alive, beneficial mutations or beneficials behaviours........ its just too much pollen in the noses of those that have gotten too close to the god of evolution and selection
Mother Nature is another odd imaginary mythical/god entity.
The phenotypes carrying beneficial mutations or exhibiting beneficial behaviors may be able to avoid being eaten by living predators long enough to produce more offspring carrying those beneficial mutations and beneficial behaviors.
We call this natural selection.
its just too much pollen in the noses of those that have gotten too close to the god of evolution and selection
This communicates nothing except maybe that you got little educational benefit from your athletic scholarship.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 112 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:48 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 107 of 323 (808152)
05-08-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CRR
05-04-2017 7:07 AM


Re: Ignorance of evolution processes and results
CRR writes:
Or in other words
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" kind.
Yep. This is why biology has moved to cladistics, even if they have hung on to a few pieces of Linnaean taxonomy. In Linnaean taxonomy a branch of the tree breaks off and attaches elsewhere on the tree. For example, if we went back 20 million years we might consider a small group of species to be a Genus. After 20 million years we would consider them to be a Family with multiple Genera in that family. Since Linnaean taxonomy has Genera next to each other instead of evolving from one another this poses some serious problems since it requires a branch to break off and reattach lower down on the tree. Cladistics doesn't have this problem.
So once a dog, always a dog. Through time, dogs may become more diverse and cover many species. Over an even longer time period, dogs may be as diverse and as widespread as mammals are now. Afterall, at one point in history the mammals would have comprised a single species in one small group of reptiles that happened to have more complex teeth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 5:07 PM Taq has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 323 (808163)
05-08-2017 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
05-08-2017 3:32 PM


What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
From another thread:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? "
Beretta, Message 7
If it looks like a dog, and walks like a dog ... but it walked the earth ~55 million years ago ...
So what do you suppose this became (two different renderings of the same critter)?

(note colors is probably not accurate and muscles might be somewhat different, but the skeletal structure and skull are from fossils).
They ran in small groups, on padded feet, in a forest and grassland type environments.
Any guesses? What limits on their evolution were imposed and how?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added second image for comparison

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 6:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 109 of 323 (808167)
05-08-2017 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
05-08-2017 5:07 PM


Re: What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
Any guesses? What limits on their evolution were imposed and how?
Equidae. The constraints put on their evolution are similar to other tetrapod lineages, such as constraints on basic body configurations established by embryonic development. For example, very similar structures will develop from the same pharyngeal arches. The head will be at one end, and the pooper at the other. Retina will be facing backwards. Forelimb is one bone, two bones, lots of little bones, and phalanges (from many to just one). Hindlimb is the same.
And even those are constraints and not impossible to change. Some features will be much easier to change than others. For example, it is easier to change the length of the humerus than it is to have two humeruses. There are probably genetic constraints as well, as described by molecular clocks and population genetics. You can only change genomes so fast, afterall.
At least those are the thoughts that come to my head when I hear "what limits on their evolution were imposed and how" . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 7:23 AM Taq has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 323 (808207)
05-09-2017 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
05-08-2017 6:03 PM


Re: What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
Equidae. ...
Well done.
So if this ...
Can evolve by simple microevolutionary steps (mutation and selection) into these ...
... all the while remaining in the Phenacodus clade ... (once a phenacodus always a phenacodus) ...
Is that not macroevolution, complete with novel features (blood filled pad in the hoof acts as supplimentary heart, pumping blood up the leg as they run)?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 6:03 PM Taq has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 111 of 323 (808225)
05-09-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tanypteryx
05-07-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Learned behaviour is not added to our genes BREAK THROUGH
Wow, evolutionists have finally spoken up and answered. They finally agree . that LEARNED BEHAVIOUR does not go into our genes..
NEWS ALERT......
LEARNED BEHAVIOUR does not go into our genes..
It takes so long for any of them to speak up and converse about their theory...... soooo very long.
But there it is, and we will repeat this GIVEN and principle from basic genetics, that totally destroys evolutionary theory.
Adaptions, instincts, behaviours all are given at conception, at creation and none of them are from what a species does in their life time. Environment does not, dictate mutations, and environment does not make new behaviours or give them new instincts or new knowledge at the birth of new generations.
The God of Selection does not select beneficial mutations..... no learned behaviour passes on to the next generation. No behaviour changes because of magical mutations.
Mystery solved, even though its straight forward genetics from Level 1 University studies.
This thread can now be referred to in any and all other threads as a proven TRUTH and PRINCIPLE..... to determine other truths and principles.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-07-2017 5:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 11:33 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 12:12 PM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 123 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-09-2017 4:42 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 112 of 323 (808226)
05-09-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tanypteryx
05-07-2017 5:02 PM


Pinpointing confirmation that NO behaviour gets into our genes
Here it is
AND I REPEAT, WE AGREE THAT LEARNED BEHAVIOR IS NOT ADDED TO OUR GENES. Correct. We all agree.
Mutations do not bring on learned behaviours...
If you mean mutations do not "cause" learned behavior, then this is so obvious that we all agree.
and learned behaviours are not passed onto new generations of insects or humans.
We all agree with this also.
No one responding to you, is claiming any of the 3 things you just listed are passed on genetically or have anything to do with mutations.
Correct. We all agree.
Tany admits that all of us agree including evolutionists, that learned behaviour does not pass into our genes. And He or She, I dont know his or her gender, puts it in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis.

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-07-2017 5:02 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 113 of 323 (808228)
05-09-2017 9:53 AM


YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So we are over 100 posts into this thread with almost thirty posts from our resident troll Davidjay and still not a single post related to the topic of "Selection".
As usual Davidjay has posted nothing but word salad and irrelevancies.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 11:17 AM jar has replied

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2328 days)
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 114 of 323 (808244)
05-09-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
05-09-2017 9:53 AM


Re: Creationism wins again....
The debate seems to be over, as the conclusion and agreement have been made.
The opposition headed by Jay, fell asleep, and could only try to attack me, and attack the messenger rather than the message. Again proof that evolutionists can not discuss anything and hence must try to get subjective.
Nevertheless, as mentioned no behaviour gets passed on genetically that was not there in the original creation. Instincts, behaviours, adaptions all came from the original, and mutation and mutations have never effected the original (unless it kills it, as with radiation etc..) Similarly as agreed upon, the environment does not induce so called beneficial mutations, and hence the evolutionists slection God has no beneficial mutations within an original to select from.
Creation wins, evolution loses.
The debate has been won...again.
ATHRAEGWTT

.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 05-09-2017 9:53 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 11:37 AM Davidjay has not replied
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-09-2017 2:15 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 115 of 323 (808245)
05-09-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Learned behaviour is not added to our genes BREAK THROUGH
Davidjay writes:
Adaptions, instincts, behaviours all are given at conception, at creation and none of them are from what a species does in their life time.
Adaptations and instincts are given at conception. You do realize that physical adaptations and instincts are not learned behavior, right?
Environment does not, dictate mutations, and environment does not make new behaviours or give them new instincts or new knowledge at the birth of new generations.
However, the environment does determine which mutations and instincts are passed on. That is natural selection.
The God of Selection does not select beneficial mutations.....
That would be true. No deity is involved. Natural selection is responsible for passing on beneficial mutations.
It's about time that you realized that there is no God of selection, and that the process is entirely natural.
No behaviour changes because of magical mutations.
That's correct. Changes in instinctual behavior is due to natural mutations, not magical ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 116 of 323 (808246)
05-09-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 11:17 AM


Re: Creationism wins again....
Davidjay writes:
Nevertheless, as mentioned no behaviour gets passed on genetically that was not there in the original creation.
LEARNED behaviors do not get passed on. Instinctual behaviors do get passed on, as do physical adaptations.
and mutation and mutations have never effected the original (unless it kills it, as with radiation etc..)
If mutations don't affect function, then how do you explain the differences in physical adaptations between chimps and humans? Why do we look different from each other if it isn't due to a difference in DNA sequence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 11:17 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 117 of 323 (808254)
05-09-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 9:41 AM


Start talking about biology.
bluegenes writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay in the O.P. writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs,....
You've now made 25 posts in this thread. So, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Here's a paper for you.
Positive selection in mice
quote:
Here we identify genetic changes contributing to an adaptive difference in color pattern between two subspecies of oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). One mainland subspecies has a cryptic dark brown dorsal coat, while a younger beach-dwelling subspecies has a lighter coat produced by natural selection for camouflage on pale coastal sand dunes. Using genome-wide linkage mapping, we identified three chromosomal regions (two of major and one of minor effect) associated with differences in pigmentation traits. Two candidate genes, the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) and its antagonist, the Agouti signaling protein (Agouti), map to independent regions that together are responsible for most of the difference in pigmentation between subspecies....
Now, give us your technical reasons why you think that the conclusions of these biologists are wrong. Support any claims you make with references to the relevant research.
You've now made 26 posts in this thread. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
You've now made 27 posts in this thread. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
At the very least, try to show us that you understand what "selection" means in biology. There's nothing in your posts so far that suggests that you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 12:52 PM bluegenes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 323 (808263)
05-09-2017 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
05-09-2017 12:12 PM


Re: Start talking about biology.
At the very least, try to show us that you understand what "selection" means in biology. There's nothing in your posts so far that suggests that you do.
But if he did that he would no longer have to troll the post with spam and making false statements just to get a response.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 12:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 05-09-2017 2:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 323 (808271)
05-09-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 11:17 AM


Re: Creationism wins again....
So you make one more content free post and STILL have not addressed the topic which is " Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' ".
Do you ever plan on addressing the topic?
Are you capable of even understanding what "addressing the topic" means?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 11:17 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 120 of 323 (808274)
05-09-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
05-09-2017 12:52 PM


Re: Start talking about biology.
RAZD writes:
But if he did that he would no longer have to troll the post with spam and making false statements just to get a response
I suggest everyone takes my approach. Show him some evidence for positive selection, linking to the research, and ask him to give a technical explanation of what's wrong with it:
Take your pick, folks
Then ask, and ask, and ask.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 3:07 PM bluegenes 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