Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'

Vlad writes: Now add the two cases together: here NS didn’t manage to maintain a simple and demanded improvement, in many millions of years.

Where did you show that this improvement appeared in any of the ancestors of the Nautilus?

Vlad writes: NS didn’t manage to maintain a simple and demanded improvement, in many millions of years.

Dawkins actually said 'obvious' not 'simple'. I can't see [sic] how aquiring a lens is 'simple' but I can see that it would be obviously useful.

But the 'obvious' point is that evolution doesn't care what's obvious, or even what's a necessity. All this anthropomorphical talk is confusing you - evolution deals with things that are good enough, Nautilus's eye is good enough to survive - by demonstration, had it not been, it would not be on our species list.

Evolution happens by a random process of mutation followed by a selection. Who knows how many, or if any, times a lens popped up in Nautilus's long ancestry - it needn't happen at all, and the anti-evolutionists say that it can't happen, - or it could have happened but there was no selection pressure for it, or animals carrying the trait just didn't survive.

The point is that evolution is not a certainty; in life's lottery there's no guarantee at all that any organisms will evolve anything, let alone the same things as other organisms. Its not possible for an organism to steal an organ from another - that's what a designer/creator would do, not what evolution can do. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of species not just one.

And that's real evidence for evolution and real evidence against creation. Thanks for the example.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Vlad writes: Still I am prepared to go on with as much amusing cases.

Are you prepared to respond to any of the criticism of your posts?

I entertained no doubts that local Darwinists would immediately flood the awkward facts with blah-blah. They didn’t fail. Thanks, guys. And my response to the ringo’s thoughtful query reads: “Demand no laureate's wreath, think nothing of abuse, and never argue with a fool.”
These are the words of great Horatio, in the other great poet’s recital. Verstehen Sie?
As is known, species reside in a state of stasis (see Nautilus pompilius), and so biological evolution actually begins with speciation, in the world of sex. While as for the microevolution and NS, I am going to present you an absolutely anecdotal case. Look and see.
After all, what is natural selection? Classic Ernst Mayr once has proposed a nice and neat notion: “...Natural selection is simply the elimination of the less fit and of the less fortunate”. (The Resistance to Darwinism And the Misconceptions on Which It Was Based. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 39). Then a naive question suggests itself: what in particular is more or less fit here?

So that's a no, you are not prepared to respond to any criticisms.

Vlad writes: Then a naive question suggests itself: what in particular is more or less fit here?

Whatever survives.

Vlad writes: As is known, species reside in a state of stasis (see Nautilus pompilius),

Species also reside in a state of change (see hominids):

Then a naive question suggests itself: what in particular is more or less fit here?

The more fit are the ones with more grandchildren and the less fit are those with fewer grandchildren.

”...And never argue with a fool”. Stile is no fool, yet he (she) makes typical misstep: compare his (her) wording to this by Taq that is quite correct. The viability and fitness are two big differences: a bacterium may happily survive yet it may have no progeny at all.
(Besides, Taq contributes the expressive image: do the hominid skulls belong to one and the same species? Or do they belong to different species which resided each in a state of stasis?)
The thing is that biological evolution is all about reproduction. So entities, which are unable to reproduce, represent no evolutionary players. And according to the mainstream textbooks, biological fitness is measured by reproductive (procreative) success while viability is just a necessary condition of successful reproduction. For instance, “...In evolutionary biology, having more viable fertile offspring is fitter than having fewer. Reproductive success is the heart of the evolutionary concept.” [Elliott Sober. Progress and Direction in Evolution. In: Creative Evolution?!, 1994, p. 24]
Well, the theory of microevolution in whole is built upon the idea of individual fitness: individual organisms are more or less fit, and so natural selection… As for the world of asexual prokaryotes, this idea looks quite plausible. Indeed, a bacterium begets more or less numerous descendants, and therefore, is considered more or less fit. Clear and neat.