Login

Join for Free!
118488 members


Natural selection is proven wrong

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby gamila » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:08 am



your answer shows me 2 things
1) you have not read deans paper
2) you dont know what the cambrian explosion is
it is a massif explosion of organisms with no evolutionary history
as dawkins note
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

you are really just trying to be diengenious
i did not ask for precambrain fossil evidence but
precambrian fossil evidence linking the cambrian organsisms- with a evolutionary history

none of those site give fossil evidence linking the major cambrian organsim

no one denies there are fossils in precamrian strata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies

none of those site give fossil evidence linking the major cambrian organsim
your list only talk about micro fossills Ediacaran remains, but not fossils linking the cambrian fossils

Gouild note
The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion
(Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

and dawkins note the organisms in the camvrian explosion have no evolutionary history
so i ask again dont give us precambrian micro fossils give us the fossils that link the cambrian organism with an evolutionary history

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).

one heading says
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... 18/12/1199
[quote]Ediacaran remains from intertillite beds in northwestern Canada[/quote
Ediacaran remains are not fossil linking the cambrian organsims

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... ne&aid=623
[quote]It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later:
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby futurezoologist » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:03 pm

Run for your lives!!! ITS GROWING!!!!
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby gamila » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:07 pm

The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.


students you are being fed ideological data
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i6f.htm
The species problem isn’t well known by the general public because it isn’t mentioned in public school high school biology classes. The presentation of facts like these are opposed by groups like the National Center for Science Education, whose goal is to censor scientific information so as not to confuse the students with the facts.



The second thing you can learn from this paragraph is that nobody else has solved the species problem. If anybody had, Schwartz would not have tried to solve it. Or, Szathmáry would have criticized Schwartz for trying to solve a problem that has already been solved. But the origin of species is still a mystery, so evolutionary scientists are still looking for an answer.


Notice, he did not say, “Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with creationists.” He said, “Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with some contemporary biologists.” He knows there are evolutionary biologists who distrust selection. Presumably, these evolutionary biologists are not distrustful of selection because of their fanatical Christian beliefs. They distrust selection for good, scientific reasons. Despite what you might read in the popular press, or hear in school, natural selection is not universally accepted by professional biologists, and is not rejected for purely religious reasons.


In the scientific community there is no consensus as to how speciation occurs. Few, if any, modern scientists still hold the Darwinian belief that species acquire characteristics from exercise, nutrition, and the environment, and that these acquired characteristics are inherited. Some modern scientists still hold the neo-Darwinian belief that random mutations can produce new genetic information which can be filtered by natural selection to create a species with new characteristics, but that number seems to be dwindling. As Szathmáry so clearly says, there is distrust of selection, and recognition that macromutation can’t produce new information. There really is no good explanation for how speciation occurs. That’s one part of the problem.


colin leslie dean simlarly argues that natural selection cannot account for new species

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


note
Linnaeus, who first proposed this system, did not believe in evolution. He merely categorized similar things to make them easier to study. Later, when the scientific community was largely misled by the theory of evolution, many scientists believed that the classification system should reflect the evolutionary history of biological development. In other words, “evolutionary groups” should match “named categories.” Part of the persistent, and well known (in professional scientific circles) “species problem”, is that they don’t match.
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm


Postby AstusAleator » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:35 pm

If you can't understand the logic in the talkorigins link, then I'm done trying. I feel like I should try to explain more, but your response to the link makes it clear you're more interested in spamming poor logic than actually thinking.

happy wbla?
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby gamila » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:01 pm

If you can't understand the logic in the talkorigins link

i have asked a simple question
just give the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
not precambrain fossils
but
the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby alextemplet » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:45 pm

futurezoologist wrote:Run for your lives!!! ITS GROWING!!!!


Don't look it in the eyes! It'll turn you into a creationist! :shock:

Ok, bad joke! :lol:
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby futurezoologist » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:13 pm

Don't look it in the eyes! It'll turn you into a creationist!


Haha

But seriously(sorry wbla, can't help it) gamila, Astus just gave you the evidence and you threw it off, we have found fossil evidence from billions of years ago already, that is what you wanted from the beginning.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby gamila » Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:04 pm

Astus just gave you the evidence and you threw it off, we have found fossil evidence from billions of years ago already, that is what you wanted from the beginning.[/quote
i did not ask for fossil precambrian fossil evidence
what i asked for
is precambrian fossil evidence that links the cambrian organisms with an evolutionary history

since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history
And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby futurezoologist » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:54 am

gamila quoted from (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229):
Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists


And you are quite delighted aren't you?.. You shouldn't be, that quote is from 1986, biologist(and archeologists) found Western Australia(Go Western Australia!) and thanks to it sitting smack in the middle of a techtonic plate we have found fossil evidence now from well before then. As for you linking of species pre and post Cambrian i will quote my reply to that exact question on one f your other topics...

FutureZoologist said:
gamila, you seem to think that it is easy to find a match of species hundreds of millions of years ago(600mil=189216000000000 seconds!) that have had millions of years to evolve, and who's generations are hundreds of times faster than ours(therefore hundreds of times faster evolution). It is not easy. As AFJ said we find it hard to profile DNA after a few weeks let alone match two organisms which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. When we have the tools to do such a thing, i assure you, we will do it.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby gamila » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:20 am

i have asked a simple question
just give the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
not precambrain fossils
but
the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

LOOK IT IS SIMPLE JUST GIVING THE LINKING FOSSILS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY FOR THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS
You shouldn't be, that quote is from 1986,

here is gould quote 1999

Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby Gavin » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:08 am

Hi Colin. Remember me? We've met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You're just the latest. The guy's not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You're certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you're stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I'll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin
Gavin
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:44 am

Postby futurezoologist » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:08 am

Yes Darwin was not perfect in his predictions, what did you intent to prove by those quotes? What evidence do you have that the Cambrian explosion was impossible in evolutionary terms?
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests