Natural selection is proven wrong

[MichaelXY]

MichaelXY

I do not agree with Gamila


we see you are now gone quite
who do you agree with now-waiting to see where the consensus is first i bet

I have gone quiet as I find your assertions to be unfounded and without any data to back them. In fact you have no real argument other than saying Darwin is wrong. If he is wrong, then I welcome a alternate hypothesis which you have failed to provide.

I think you are being silly, and revel in the fact that you can create quite a stir. I am sure you sit at your monitor and enjoy the controversy that you create. At the end of the day, you have nothing valid to say, your claims are baseless and your argument is weak. This is why I choose to be silent as you do nothing more than make baseless statements and waste bandwidth with useless drivel.

[gamila]

If he is wrong, then I welcome a alternate hypothesis which you have failed to provide.

i have no alternative hypothesis
like colin leslie dean i am not a creationist and i dont believe in ID


Darwin seminal book was called

The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection

but
natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

as colin leslie dean says

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

"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 "

[MichaelXY]

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

as colin leslie dean says

Not irrefutable. Let me see if I can articulate my thinking.

The straight beaked booby has an offspring. This offspring has a mutation that causes it to have a curved beak. For some reason the curved beak booby survives and procreates, the offspring now have curved beaks, the curved beak boobies have trouble feeding as the other boobies do so they venture out to find plants that work for the them. Many miles away the curved beak booboies find a plant that has a curved shape where their beak fits perfectly. All the skinny curved beak boobies hear of this plant and they all flock to it to taste its nector.

Eventually all the curve beak boobies flock to this new location and stay there. They procreate and more mutations occur. Eventually genetic changes occur ever so slowly that the new curve beak boobies can no longer procreate with straight billed boobies.

End of story, new species

[gamila]

Not irrefutable. Let me see if I can articulate my thinking.

as pauljgrayson said

Yes, you're right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation.

look it is very simple
we have 2 facts

1)natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
2)Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

[canalon]

Gamila is given 2 weeks of cooling time to rethink his arguments and provide something new to the discussion. And to learn that some trolling might be tolerated in limited threads, but that if it spreads, it becomes less tolerable.

[mith]

[biohazard]

Hihi :P

[Peanutgal]

Everyone posting to this thread, and potentially even to this site, should take the time to read Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth. Perhaps, had some of the anti-NS posters above read this work instead of the drivel written by a PHILOSOPHER, there would have been less requirement for the pro-NS folks to repeat themselves again (and again). Natural selection is the real deal, and Dawkins outlines exactly how and why, with examples even a devout creationist will find hard to argue against (alas, I fear they will still try). With former Bishops, countless scientists and even a few creationists directly quoted in the work, Dawkins review of NS is brilliant. He discusses why the "Missing Link" argument doesn't hold water, how natural selection for certain traits also brings with it other, unrelated but linked traits (as in silver foxes), and how we CAN see natural selection(micro-/macro-, who cares?), from start to finish, as a result of several ingenious ongoing studies with bacteria and fish.

So read up, and then come back online and post with some authority, well thought out arguments, and hopefully more concrete evidence than that provided by a philosophical "article" and Wikipedia "evidence".

[carbonbasedlifeform]

All I am going to say is nothing can be proven wrong or right, but we can view the smaller contradictions to base our beliefs on, a creationist simply states the universe is too complex to have just rearranged itself, so it was created by an intelligent being no questions asked. Natural selection however has LOADS of factual theories that have been tested, you can't test the existence of a God so we do not know for sure, evolution may be disproved but it stands stronger than creationism in theoretical evidence, plain and simple.

[beabea]

I'm writing my mid-term paper on Bacon's four idols.
I was in desperate need of good example for the Idol of the Cave, and this is perfect!
i want to thank Gamila for your inability to "see the bigger picture"

bea*

[gamila]

Dawkins review of NS is brilliant.

he misss the important point

natural selection is not responsible for the generation of new species Thus wrong as a theory of origin of species

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

it is simple logic
the logic is irrefutable

1)natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
2)Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

[pauljgrayson]

Gamila, I've not sure what you're arguing here. I don't want to post something until I now what I'm responding to. Can you help me out? I think it might be one or more of the following:

a. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is not a complete description of evolution.

b. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is completely wrong: natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

c. Natural selection as we now understand it is not a complete description of evolution

d. Natural selection as we now understand it has nothing to do with evolution

e. Natural selection as we now understand it does not exist: it does not happen.

Or feel free to offer your own sentences if these are not exactly what you're trying to get at.

Regards,

Paul