Arete Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 No natural selection is just natural selection ie any kind of selection from a group of thing, ie if I select fish and chips from the menu that is my natural selection, it's a long way from evolution, the chips have not turned into a turnip and the fish has not turned into a turkey. Natural selection has a specific definition in a scientific context - you can't change the definition of things to suit your specific argument - this is called a strawman argument and is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
esbo Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) So you're saying that you're ok with evolution but not speciation? No selection is not evolution it's just selection, nothing is evolving we are just witnessing extinction, which is nothing new. If you want to say that over times many animals have become extinct I am perfectly happy with that, because there is some evidence for it. The problem for evolutionists is that we fail to see all the new animals it should be producing that is why I feel the case for evolution is not there, the evidence is not there. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked. Natural selection has a specific definition in a scientific context - you can't change the definition of things to suit your specific argument - this is called a strawman argument and is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia....tural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Unfortunately it is science which is changing the definition of things, ie it is turning 'theory' into 'law' inappropiately. The fact science has to redefine so many words to make it work should set the alarm bells ringing for you. You have elevated scientists into a god-like status and just blindly follow the dogma, failing to question why it needs to redefine words, this also makes it difficult to discuss when science has changed the meaning of word away from the true meaning in order bamboozle it's critics. Changing the meaning of words is the hallmark of a crook and a conman. Edited March 15, 2012 by esbo -2
zapatos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 No natural selection is just natural selection ie any kind of selection from a group of thing, ie if I select fish and chips from the menu that is my natural selection, it's a long way from evolution, the chips have not turned into a turnip and the fish has not turned into a turkey. Is it time to call Troll? This cannot possibly be just a misunderstanding. 3
Appolinaria Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 you agree that, for example; a. mutations occur b. natural selection exists but you think evolution is a lie? what definition of evolution are you looking at? are you just confused about where the darker moths came from and how?
ewmon Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 You seem to be under the impression that we move in a single generation from one species to another. Such is not the case. Yet, by current definitions, there must be a point where the offspring are reproductively incompatible with all previous generations.
Arete Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) The problem for evolutionists is that we fail to see all the new animals it should be producing that is why I feel the case for evolution is not there, the evidence is not there. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked. You have been posted many examples form the literature which document speciation. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear. Unfortunately it is science which is changing the definition of things, ie it is turning 'theory' into 'law' inappropiately. You have repeatedly had the concept of laws and theories as it applies to scientific concepts explained to you. It's specific and leaves little room for misinterpretation, which is the reason science has specific definitions - specifically to AVOID misleading statements. Edited March 15, 2012 by Arete
Tres Juicy Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 No selection is not evolution it's just selection, nothing is evolving we are just witnessing extinction, which is nothing new. This is just plain wrong The problem for evolutionists is that we fail to see all the new animals it should be producing that is why I feel the case for evolution is not there, the evidence is not there. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked. This argument shows either a massive lack of understanding or just plain trolling Evolution does not mean that new animals will keep appearing, it means that the existing animals will change slightly over time. Unfortunately it is science which is changing the definition of things, ie it is turning 'theory' into 'law' inappropiately. You have been given the definitions of both these words. Look them up You have elevated scientists into a god-like status and just blindly follow the dogma, failing to question why it needs to redefine words, this also makes it difficult to discuss when science has changed the meaning of word away from the true meaning in order bamboozle it's critics. This is almost the opposite of science, you have also been given information on the scientific method - please read it before posting any more ridiculous claims like this one. Not only are you showing your ignorance here, you are also showing that you haven't bothered to listen to the points made by other members Changing the meaning of words is the hallmark of a crook and a conman. What about ignoring evidence? Avoiding questions? Willful ignorance?
doG Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 This is what you lot fail to understand, variation within a species is limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory No. You fail to understand. See ring species to see how a chain of species variations leads to to an eventual variation where the descendants cannot interbreed. Neighboring generations that result from natural selection can but distant generations cannot. It shows how evolution does indeed lead to speciation.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Yet, by current definitions, there must be a point where the offspring are reproductively incompatible with all previous generations. No, not necessarily. Suppose an organism develops change A, but is still able to reproduce with others of its species. Change A then proliferates and becomes widely spread in the group. Change B develops, building on change A, and alters reproductive behavior so that an organism with changes A and B cannot mate with an organism without either. At no point is an organism unable to mate with the immediate previous generation; instead, changes build until several mutations cumulatively create reproductive incompatibility that prevents one group from mating with another independently evolving group. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html
zapatos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Yet, by current definitions, there must be a point where the offspring are reproductively incompatible with all previous generations. No, not all previous generations. But previous generations somewhat further back in the family tree.
John Cuthber Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Is it time to call Troll? This cannot possibly be just a misunderstanding. I agree it is time to call Troll. He's not responding to valid counterpoints and he's moving the goalposts.
StringJunky Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I agree it is time to call Troll. He's not responding to valid counterpoints and he's moving the goalposts. I'm coming to the same conclusion. Calling us "Evolutionists" smacks of Creationist-type thinking. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked.
Phi for All Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Calling us "Evolutionists" smacks of Creationist-type thinking. Creationists we can handle. When someone claims the sky is green, you show them 10 different ways that it's blue and they still claim it's green without anything more than their own incredulity to back them up, it's a whole different trollgame.
iNow Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 But the sky IS green. You blue-sky acceptors are just another type of religion, really... just like people who accept that humans impact climate change. All religions, yep.
Janus Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 But the sky IS green. Blasphemy! All true believers know that the sky is Chartreuse.
iNow Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Blasphemy! All true believers know that the sky is Chartreuse. Heathen.
ydoaPs Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 But the sky IS green. You blue-sky acceptors are just another type of religion, really... just like people who accept that humans impact climate change. All religions, yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6R86SXL1pI
swansont Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Because it is selection within the same species, you are never gonna naturally select an elephant from a butterfly, that just aint gonna happen. Ginger haired people are never gonna evolve into a different species. That's just ludicrous ! Moderator Note Yes, quite. Stating ludicrous claims that are a straw-man representation is called appeal to ridicule. IOW, evolution doesn't claim that these things are expected to happen. It's a logical fallacy, i.e. an invalid argument, and a violation of rule #4. No selection is not evolution it's just selection, nothing is evolving we are just witnessing extinction, which is nothing new. If you want to say that over times many animals have become extinct I am perfectly happy with that, because there is some evidence for it. The problem for evolutionists is that we fail to see all the new animals it should be producing that is why I feel the case for evolution is not there, the evidence is not there. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked. Unfortunately it is science which is changing the definition of things, ie it is turning 'theory' into 'law' inappropiately. The fact science has to redefine so many words to make it work should set the alarm bells ringing for you. You have elevated scientists into a god-like status and just blindly follow the dogma, failing to question why it needs to redefine words, this also makes it difficult to discuss when science has changed the meaning of word away from the true meaning in order bamboozle it's critics. Changing the meaning of words is the hallmark of a crook and a conman. ! Moderator Note The meanings of these terms is consistently used in science. What we have her is a prime example of why we don't bother to discuss evolution vs creation. All to often an intellectually honest discussion of science cannot happen. Closed. esbo, do not reintroduce the subject. 4
Recommended Posts