Login

Join for Free!
118864 members


Natural selection is proven wrong

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby ptera9 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:33 am

aagghhhh so frustrating! please dont even consider this person's post! he/shes obviously a creationist!! none of her claims are founded

nat.selection, more importantly evolution, cannot be wrong! it has shown itself to be correct over and over again!

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
no! READ ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species COMPLETELY WRONG! new traits arise gradually through mutations! these traits eventually are what separates species!


3)genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
again, see punctuated equilibrium

dont let creationists spam these forums, dont allow ignorance to permeate!
The Bible's blind, the Torah's deaf, the Qur'an is mute
If you burned them all together you'd be close to the truth
Still they're poring over Sanskrit under Ivy League moons
While shadows lengthen in the sun...
User avatar
ptera9
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:12 am
Location: USA, MA

Postby gamila » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:35 am

he/shes obviously a creationist!!

colin leslie dean is not a creationists
he believe all view religious and scientific end in meaninglessness ie contradiction

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
no! READ ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!



)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species COMPLETELY WRONG! new traits arise gradually through mutations! these traits eventually are what separates species!



“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”


It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
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
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

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby papa1983 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:55 am

ptera9, do not try to reason with someone who believes reason is meaningless-nonsense. Gamila is an ID automaton.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
User avatar
papa1983
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:29 pm
Location: Afghanistan


Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:32 am

gam-gam is neither ID or creationist, just annoying.
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

Re:

Postby robsabba » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:20 pm

gamila wrote:It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS

Gould's intentions may indeed be irrelevant, but PE nevertheless only deals with the rate of evolutioary change, not its mechanism(s).

gamila wrote: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

Speciation has always been seen as the basic step of evolution. One can evolve new traits without genetic mutation (eg quantitative traits); nevertheless most individuals have a few mutations anyway. Let me give you an example from the 1950s (if I recall correctly). It was shown that two populations of Drosophila could be selected to have either more or less bristle hairs than the range of bristle hairs in the original population. In other words, a completelty new trait, not seen in the original population.

gamila wrote:A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on

Again wrong, for the reasons I gave above.

gamila wrote: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

You keep referring to traits.. it is genetic material that is passed on (ie genes, promoters, etc) NOT traits.

gamila wrote:Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.”

Semantics. This is equivalent to claiming that starfish must have evolved from stars since their name has "star" in it.

gamila wrote:Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

A new species will have only a few differences from its parent species. They may even look be difficult to tell apart. Yes, "something evolved from what it was not," but it is something very similiar to what it was. You have yet to explain what is wrong with this. I think you need to study up on basic genetics.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:40 am

Speciation has always been seen as the basic step of evolution.


how can you talk about speciation when biologist dont even know what a species is

scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense


one notion of species ends in self contradiction

Many on here seem to think biologists know what species are
some argue that
species can interbreed with each other
yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense
take the Bactrian and dromardary camales


Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.



yet these two different species can interbreed and have fertile off spring
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm


this demonstrates colin leslie deans point that biologiy is not a science as its classifatory system ie species ends in meaningless nonsense
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf


thus we have the contradiction
ie bactrian and dromadry camels are different species thus they cant bread together

but
they can breed which means they must be the same species

so much for your speciation which leads into meaningless nonsence as you cant tell us what a species is
or
when you do ie different species cant interbreed you end in contradiction


You keep referring to traits.. it is genetic material that is passed on (ie genes, promoters, etc) NOT traits.

wrong
as this forum dictionary shows


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... _selection
It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.


and
”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005



you contradict yourself
gamila wrote:A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on


Again wrong, for the reasons I gave above.


then admit that something - ie with new traits- can evolve from something it is not ie it does not have the traits

Yes, "something evolved from what it was not,
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby GaryGaulin » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:42 pm

Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.
User avatar
GaryGaulin
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:52 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby gamila » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:03 pm

Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.


i tell you what
i will show you just what the problem is ie the belief in essences and thus a static logic
go read colin leslie deans books

DONT THINK OF SPECIES AS A NOUN BUT THINK OF IT AS A VERB
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ssence.pdf
Essence the metaphysical ground of logic and language: a reason for the bankruptcy of logic, the stultification of reason and the
meaninglessness of all views

and
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... smbook.pdf

Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views


and you will see you are looking in the wrong place
life is a process
species/essence are static concepts indicating a static world
you must move from the static to process
whitehead ie he wrote principa mathematica with russell
advocated a process theory
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:21 pm

gamila wrote:how can you talk about speciation when biologist dont even know what a species is

Species are not static enteties, as some of your quote-mining explains. Populations and species change over time. This hardly means they do not exist. The species is a static concept we use to represent a more fluid natural reality. If, however, you accept that species change over time, how can you claim evolution does not occur?


gamila wrote:you contradict yourself
then admit that something - ie with new traits- can evolve from something it is not ie it does not have the traits

What I meant is that traits are not inherited as a unit. One does not either inherit a trait as manifested in a parent or not inherit a trait. Genes are what is inherited and it is they that dictate what traits an organism with manifest. Even without mutation, traits can be different in an offspring compared to its parents.

Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without a long quote mine. Is it possible for a parent with bloodtype A and a parent with bloodtype B to produce an offspring with bloodtype o without any mutation occurring in the offspring?
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:18 pm

The species is a static concept we use to represent a more fluid natural reality


you can keep ignoring the fact but it want go away
ie as colin leslie dean has shown you biologist dont know what species are
or when they tell us it ends in self contradiction

What I meant is

but what you said was

Yes, "something evolved from what it was not,


hence

Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”



One does not either inherit a trait as manifested in a parent or not inherit a trait. Genes are what is inherited and it is they that dictate what traits an organism with manifest.


and as was pointed out
from this site

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... _selection

note it talks about heritable traits
It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.



Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without a long quote mine. Is it possible for a parent with bloodtype A and a parent with bloodtype B to produce an offspring with bloodtype o without any mutation occurring in the offspring?


fact is a colin leslie dean has shown

NS
is


It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

and again

note it talks about traits
natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)


thus
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 Gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species And below Gould talks about phylum BUT scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is
Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:02 pm

gamila wrote: you can keep ignoring the fact but it want go away
ie as colin leslie dean has shown you biologist dont know what species are
or when they tell us it ends in self contradiction

1. If you have a better definition for species please share it with us.

2. Are Tigers and Lions different? If so, how would you caetgorize them?

3. Traits are the result of gene expression. It is the genes that are inherited, not specific traits. You can quote mine all you like, it doesn't change that fact.

4. Please answer the question I asked. Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

5. Please do not answer with quotes mines separated by "thus" or "hence." I will not bother to read them. Can you answer in your own words?
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re:

Postby GaryGaulin » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:11 am

gamila wrote:
Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.

i tell you what
i will show you just what the problem is ie the belief in essences and thus a static logic

Gamila, I am seriously writing a theory that is presented at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ and have already spent many hours in other forums stuck in arguments over the definition of speciation. I am now trying to finish this before I become homeless over it!

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.
User avatar
GaryGaulin
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:52 am
Location: Massachusetts

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests