Login

Join for Free!
117189 members


Natural selection is proven wrong

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:15 am

well natural selection being the cause of new species sure looks like and impossiblity


“Appearances often are deceiving.”
- Aesop
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

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby gamila » Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:50 pm

Appearances often are deceiving.”
- Aesop


just follow the logic
it points to the impossibility of natural selection to generate new species

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

A new species has completely new traits[physical characteristics] 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 [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and 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 alextemplet » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:53 pm

gamila wrote:just follow the logic
it points to the impossibility of natural selection to generate new species


Logic has already disproven your arguments, and yet you still refuse to listen to reason.
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 » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:52 pm

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before


Whoever wrote that either made a very big mistake or had not even read the definition of natural selection.

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


May i ask who wrote this? I can now see that this is definitely not a mistake.

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, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.


NS has nothing to do with the mutation of genes, it puts pressure on certain traits in a population.

Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not.


You cannot beat scientific evidence with word games. Of course it evolved from something it was not, if it evolved from something it was already then it wouldn't be evolution.
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 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:13 am

May i ask who wrote this?

colin leslie dean
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG'


you say
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, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.


You cannot beat scientific evidence with word game


note traits are physical characteristics

logic says IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NS TO GENERATE NEW SPECIES-with new physical characteristics

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

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 gamila » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:37 am

You cannot beat scientific evidence with word games


so where is the evidence of precambrian fossil that link up with the cambrian organsism
you have none
thus the precambrian explosion shows Natural selection is wrong
based on your own criteria of science based on evidence
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:38 am

logic says IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NS TO GENERATE NEW SPECIES-with new physical characteristics


Who is this logic you speak of? I totally agree with 'logic' - NS never tried to account for the mutation of genes(if infact NS were sentient) thats what the mutation theory is for.


if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


This philosopher should have at least read the defintion of Natural Selection before he went about writing an essay to disprove 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

Re: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby gamila » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:13 am

This philosopher should have at least read the defintion of Natural Selection before he went about writing an essay to disprove it.



”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)

and

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

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: Natural selection is proven wrong

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:54 am

OK, i should have said >>> Colin Leslie Dean should have read and understood it before we went about writing an essay to disprove it.

I am seriously considering whether you are a bot that has been written by genesispark or something... You keep quoting:

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation


Natural Selection describes the selective pressure on certain traits, causing disadvantageous traits to be bred out of the population and the traits which give organisms a better chance of passing on their genes to become more common. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROCESS OF MUTATION. Mutation is how these new traits come into play, mutations are essentially mistakes which cause a change in the organisms genetic code.


Here is Natural Selection<<-------------------------------------------------------------------->>Here is Mutation

Note the distance between them. Natural Selection is separate from mutation. The philosopher that you are quoting does not know this. Please tell him. Also please tell him not to get evidence from genesispark to put in his essays, all persuasion is lost at the sight of its reference.
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 » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:03 am

Note the distance between them. Natural Selection is separate from mutation


”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)


as colin leslie dean says
logic is logic

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:59 am

By the looks of your reply either: 1) You didn't read my post or 2) You read it and decided to dismiss its and quote from your friend Colin again.

Please read over my above post and comment on the points made there because I'm not about to go and reiterate it all over again.
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 » Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:39 am

By the looks of your reply either: 1) You didn't read my post or 2) You read it and decided to dismiss its and quote from your friend Colin again.

Please read over my above post and comment on the points made there because I'm not about to go and reiterate it all over again

just use your logic and you might get it
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron