Stile writes:
No. Natural selection is simply
one of the most popular screening processes
in which evolution occurs.
It is nothing more than a naturally-occuring
selective pressure on a species.
The existance of artificial selection
should be enough to show that natural selection is not tautological.
It's alive.. Why?..Natural Selection.. How do we know that it was
Naturally selected?... It's alive. That's circular reasoning. Natural
Selection is just "Survival of the fittest" rephrased.
onifre writes:
As I told Berreta, he(or rather they), put the cart before the horse.
They have the belief in the Creator,
then they view the evidence and adjust it so that it fits their belief...and not the other way around.
But
Bluejay writes:
But, do scientists then just assume that there’s a
pattern there and stop working on it?
No, not really: we go out on expeditions to
find more evidence to solidify or modify the pattern,
and, next year, we go and do it again, each time building
on what we did last year or five years ago or whatever.
Well you do assume that there's a pattern there, thats what you
are trying to "solidify", or "modify" but never
reject.
Where I come from, we reject a theory if we find anomallies (counter examples).
What do you do with them?
If you expect creationists to reject creation, then you must
also be prepared to reject evolution (whatever evolution means today 29/7/2008).
™ Version 4.2
