Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
and has been pointed out natural selection and genetics cannot account for generation of new species
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
'THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG
kumara, some more advice. If you prefer to not have to repeat your course again next year, you will have to be selective when reading postings. Many of us on these forums are biologists or students and are willing to help people who have questions, but some aren't (biologists, students, or willing to help).
what he is saying is you must toe the line and repeat the orthodoxy
just as if you where a student in Galelios time in order to pass you would have had to repeat the earth centric doctrine
and as i have shown these biologists cant even tell you what a species or phylum is
some of us on here are trying to make you think to open your eyes to major propblem which the orthodoxy try and keep hidden Trying to show you other ways of viewing biology other than through the orthodoxy of text books Khun a philosopher of science showed that most science is just normal science where scientists are really just technicians performing the accepted algorythyms where anomolies and contradictions to and within the paradgims are just passed over until they become to many and eventually create a scientific revolution of new science and new ways of seeing
at the moment in biology biologists
cant even tell you what a species or phylum is
they cant refute the claim that logically Natural selection and genetics cant account for the generation of new species
they cant deal with the fact that NS is wrong due to harmful genes being transmitted and being common in the population when NS says they should be rare
they cant deal with the fact that the cambrian explosion shows NS is wrong- oh they can come up with explanations like begging the question - but they can give hard facts fossiles evidence to prove their points-and we are always told science is based on facts
as i have said
he is telling you you must just repeat biologies catechisms to pass like a good sheep and do normal science ie just be a techician
I just finished a paper written by Edward Blythe. He was a creationist and wrote this 20 years before Origin of Species. http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/BLYT1835.htm
Writing on simple variations, acquired variations, breeds, and true varieties. I think this might qualify as descent with modification.
Confinement is a technique to breed a particular trait or traits. However this is manipulated and not observed as a rule in nature. Though it could happen in theory in nature it would be exception, not the rule. Also there would simply not be enough space on the earth for all organisms to speciate through confinement and separation. Furthermore, NS would have worked against speciation in nature as the crooked limbs of these sheep would have made them weak and inferior.
how can you talk of speciation when biologist dont know what a species is
you must escape from the brain washing of the text books and THINKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
it is a logical impossiblity for NS to generate new species
I am a creationist, and I am arguing against evolution using its own tenants. If were going to be respected we have to show ourselves as intelligent and fair minded.
NS takes place, but not in the context that evolutionists say. Speciation can happen, but not with such frequency or ease as evolutionists would constantly suggest. Unless it is done by the direct agency of man and then there are proven genetic boundaries, as well as instinctual boundaries in mating.
Let me add that I am speaking on a science forum, and have to speak current science language with accepted science theories. This is why I would use "speciation" for what Edward Blythe called "true varieties." There are true varieties in the "kinds" (Genesis 1) or baramin that God created. One can see this by observation. Blythe used an example of the otter sheep...
It is the variation within genetics that causes the problem with the definition of species in the first place. There are thousands of different kinds of organisms.
The bottom line is do NS and speciation, cause a branching off into a totally new type of organism, which has attributes so different than what it branched off of, it is proof of evolution. This has not been seen, and is not seen in the geologic record.
you cant talk of speciation if you dont know what a species is
you can only attack science on its own terms
and on its own terms science does not know what a species is so you cant talk about speciation
for the record i respect your position
i am not a creationist
So what r u?
I understand that exact definition of species is problematic. But technically, species is an approximate bracketing of similar phenotypes. Anyone can see the similar phenotypes between two german shepherds. .
Evolutionary speciation is a theory, as I'm sure you know, says that over time as families of organisms mutated, those with different kinds of traits separated and interbred. This is the supposed process that caused genetic drift until invertebrates became vertebrates and so forth.
In a creationist context speciation and NS are understood in terms of of variations and adaptation to environments respectively. Research shows that traits and phenotypes that may be advantageous in one environment may be disadvantageous in another environment. As the favorable environment returns so do broader traits and phenotypes within a baramin (created kind). So therefore, unlike evolution teaches, the effects of NS are not set in stone.
It is also seen that the sexual competition of NS actually strengthens the organism, and helps it survive through adverse conditions. This would be one logistical argument for 1)the history of phenotypes and their evident stability i.e. "living fossils" and 2) protection against genetic drift.
"Species" is largely a human construct, where we try to differentiate among fairly similar types, but the fossil record and current genetic studies show transitions and connections between much more separate phylogenetic groups. There is no such dichotomy as microevolution and macroevolution, there all part of the same continuum.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests