Login

Join for Free!
119239 members


Logical impossble 4 natural selection 2 generate new species

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Logical impossble 4 natural selection 2 generate new species

Postby gamila » Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:29 pm

It is Logically impossible 4 natural selection 2 generate new species
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

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

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 alextemplet » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:09 pm

Goodness, four new threads opened overnight to cover the same topics as a thread that's already in existence. We have a word for this. It's called spam.
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)

Postby gamila » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:29 pm

It's called spam.

its not spam and you calling it is your attempt to belittle the question sort like an ad hominum
because you cant deal with the argument-
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm


Re: Logical impossble 4 natural selection 2 generate new species

Postby AFJ » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:44 pm

Gamilia,
I think I understand your point but, no offense, you're not real clear. Try editing on preview before you post.

I always thought NS was an elimination of weak traits, so death to the weak and life to the strong. This is why in nature there may be observed variation in a species because the organism with certain traits may be able to survive better than another variation in certain environments. Darwin saw closely related birds separated (in the same order but not the same species) --one set on an island the other on the main land. They in part speciated, so it was supposed.

However, in some scientists' opinions, Darwin did make a discovery, but took the ball and ran by applying this between all families of organisms without observation of this fallacy. Because research was limited and species fixity was an exaggeration also, creationists were ill-equipped to answer effectively at the time.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby gamila » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:42 am

I always thought NS was an elimination of weak traits, so death to the weak and life to the strong.


NS is shown to be wrong by harmfull genes being transmitted and being common- when NS says they should be rare
see the thread
about15936.html
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby gamila » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:40 pm

NOTE
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.


on the evolution of an eye

Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with some contemporary biologists. This is, I think, why he chose to ignore, for example, Peter Sheldon's work on the gradualism apparent in the evolution of the pygidial ribs of trilobites. When he discusses the celebrated computer study by Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger on the evolution of the optical structure of a fish eye, he mistakenly suggests that the intermediates are not selective improvements on the previous forms. It is revealing that he dismisses this scenario by saying : "Do we actually need to invoke such an elaborate thought experiment in order to understand the origin of the vertebrate eye, or any eye, for that matter? I think not. And the reasons lie in knowing that there are homeobox genes for eye formation and that when one of them, the Rx gene in particular, is activated in the right place and at the right time, an individual has an eye."

This is utterly misleading. Schwartz ignores the fact that homeobox genes are selector genes. They can do nothing if the genes regulated by them are not there. … It is totally wrong to imply that an eye could be produced by a macromutation when no eye was ever present in the lineage before. 2 [emphasis supplied]


In simple English, he is saying that eye genes can’t be produced by random macromutations. The eye genes have to be inherited from an ancestor that has eyes. This leads to the obvious question, “From whom did the first creature with eyes inherit its eyes?”


colin leslie dean points out
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


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

Re: Logical impossble 4 natural selection 2 generate new species

Postby MichaelXY » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:59 am

Gamila, you seem to have mastered the art of copying the thoughts of others to support your somewhat weak arguments ( Giving you the benefit of the doubt ). However; you have failed to show any original thinking and I question your ability to analyze opposing thoughts and ideas.

To me you seem redundant, unoriginal and silly. You bring no new arguments to the table, rather you just spew the same old rhetoric and attempt to belittle with a large vocabulary that you most likely plagiarized by someone else.

We are not impressed, and more importantly, annoyed by your constant need to create conflict.

Do the forum a favor, Pull you lip over your head and swallow.
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby gamila » Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:43 am

you say
Gamila, you seem to have mastered the art of copying the thoughts of others to support your somewhat weak arguments


and that comming from a person who themselves quotes from text books when an argumant is needed or to pass exams

as
colin leslie dean says NS cannot generate new species

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 futurezoologist » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:59 am

here we go again with "colin dean lesly said"

Mutation and NS are different.
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 10:22 am

IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR NS TO GENERATE A NEW SPECIES
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 futurezoologist » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:55 am

Do i have to do this again?...No but i will.

Mutation<<<<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>NaturalSelection


Natural selection and mutation are two different processes.

New traits come from mutation.
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 Gavin » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:09 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


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest