07 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot quite. Natural selection is the mechanism by which a species optimizes its chance for survival.
The error begins with mislabeling and continues onto wild conjecture. First, the mislabel. NS--- accurately described--- is nothing more than the fight for life. Every living organism is programmed to fight for its survival: the grass stalk kicks through the dirt into the open air and the fetus fights its way through the canal of birth. Such thriving i ...[text shortened]... ure of any organism; faces neither profit or loss as a result of the status of its dependents.
Each individual organism strives to live and pass its genetic material on. The most successful
of organisms is the one which passes on the most genetic material (probably living the longest).
So, any advantage in this end that an individual organism has over its brethren will result in the
propagation of its genetic material (and, consequently that advantage).
Yes, sometimes weaker organisms get lucky and pass on their genetic material and sometimes
stronger organisms die early. But, statistically, stronger organisms will survive most frequently
and pass on the most stuff.
Natural selection is merely a description of the mechanism which optimizes the survival of an
individual species.
Nemesio
07 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by amannion================================
I'm more than happy to 'open my mind' to an intelligence involved in life, if you can show me: 1. the need to do so, and 2. any credible evidence for this.
By the first point - the need to have intelligence - I mean something more than just your 'I can't believe it's not butter' assertion. Scientific models typically operate on a 'simplest-one-is-better' p
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
==================================
I agree with Charles Darwin himself when he warned what were the factors which would render his theory less reasonable. He wrote:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduate organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and greatest objection which can be urged against my theory"
[On the Origen of Species, Charles Darwin, pg. 280]
So I am only agreeing with Darwin himself that the lack of evidence of a finely graduated organic chain revealing the needed abundant proof of intermediate links, renders the macro-evolution model less reasonable.
07 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillSo you are saying you agree that 'micro' evolution happens, but 'macro' evolution does not?
[b]================================
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
==================================
I agree with Charles Darwin himself when he warned what were the factors which would render his theory less reasonable. He wrote:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every st ...[text shortened]... eded abundant proof of intermediate links, renders the macro-evolution model less reasonable.
07 Mar 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI believe that some things can be explained by changes in organisms on a micro level.
So you are saying you agree that 'micro' evolution happens, but 'macro' evolution does not?
Under this heading I would put the changes observed in fruit flies or the breeding of very different kinds of dogs. Also black moths on smoky trees out surviving light colored moths on the same trees.
07 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillSo can you explain what level of evolution is unacceptable?
I believe that some things can be explained by changes in organisms on a micro level.
Under this heading I would put the changes observed in fruit flies or the breeding of very different kinds of dogs. Also black moths on smoky trees out surviving light colored moths on the same trees.
How much change is 'too much' for you?
07 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWhat has been observed is more fit organisms surviving less fit of their same type. What is far less observed is surviving organisms doing so because they became another type of organism.
So can you explain what level of evolution is unacceptable?
How much change is 'too much' for you?
Perhaps you'd like to pin me down to a line so fine that pointing out a possible exception would prove macro-evolution.
But I think generally speaking you should be able to agree that "evolving" bacteria are still bacteria, and "evolving moths" are still moths. That we have observed. Science is about taking observations.
For too long the public has been duped by zealous evos saying that any change in any organism proves that all life evolved from the first one celled organism.
07 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillSo if some evolution has been observed, it is I guess by definition undeniable, and so the line you draw is at the point of current observations?
What has been [b]observed is more fit organisms surviving less fit of their same type. What is far less observed is surviving organisms doing so because they became another type of organism.
Perhaps you'd like to pin me down to a line so fine that pointing out a possible exception would prove macro-evolution.
But I think generally speaking you s any change in any organism proves that all life evolved from the first one celled organism.[/b]
Or is it at and above the point of speciation? (broadly)
[edit1] I suppose you could say that what evolution tries to explain, by 'natural' means, is the various degrees of difference in DNA in animals.
If you wish to believe that there is a supernatural hand in it all, why be so worried about it all; to you, there is no issue; Whatever cannot be explained by natural means is supernaturally brought about. And perhaps also the stuff that that we think is natural is not really natural, it is all guided.
[edit2] I really think there is no clash here at all, and this does not threaten you at all, so I am unsure where your unease comes from.
07 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillSo, the refutations and explanations of a lack of fine graduated species mean nothing to you?
[b]================================
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
==================================
I agree with Charles Darwin himself when he warned what were the factors which would render his theory less reasonable. He wrote:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every st ...[text shortened]... eded abundant proof of intermediate links, renders the macro-evolution model less reasonable.
That's not particularly compelling.
What else do you find less reasonable?
07 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIt's on page 213 in my copy.
================================
By the way, what do you think are the less reasonable parts of Darwin's model?
==================================
I agree with Charles Darwin himself when he warned what were the factors which would render his theory less reasonable. He wrote:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every st eded abundant proof of intermediate links, renders the macro-evolution model less reasonable.
In the following sentence, he says "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Darwin goes on, over the next several pages, to explain why the geological record is so patchy. Essentially, fossilisation is a rare occurance. The victim must die in particular circumstances, in a specific kind of terrain, during a period of a specific kind of geological activity, before it has a chance of being fossilised.
With this in mind, we should not expect every geological formation and every stratum to be full of such intermediate links.
--- Penguin.
07 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Penguin==================================
It's on page 213 in my copy.
In the following sentence, he says "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Darwin goes on, over the next several pages, to explain why the geological record is so patchy. Essentially, fossilisation is a rare occurance. The victim must die in particular circumstances, in a ...[text shortened]... geological formation and every stratum to be full of such intermediate links.
--- Penguin.
Darwin goes on, over the next several pages, to explain why the geological record is so patchy. Essentially, fossilisation is a rare occurance. The victim must die in particular circumstances, in a specific kind of terrain, during a period of a specific kind of geological activity, before it has a chance of being fossilised.
With this in mind, we should not expect every geological formation and every stratum to be full of such intermediate links.
==============================
Regardless, it renders an important potential evidence, not available.
Life is not always fair.
Since that avenue of confirmation is not available to us we need another equally powerful confirming evidence.
With the public at large this has taken the form mostly in the art work of imaginative artists, who have painted what Evolutionists want to see, i.e. ape-men.
07 Mar 08
Originally posted by NemesioI am uncomfortable with your phrasing. Natural selection is not something a species does but rather something that happens to the species.
Not quite. Natural selection is the mechanism by which a species optimizes its chance for survival.
Each individual organism strives to live and pass its genetic material on. The most successful
of organisms is the one which passes on the most genetic material (probably living the longest).
So, any advantage in this end that an individual organism has ...[text shortened]... description of the mechanism which optimizes the survival of an
individual species.
Nemesio
08 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillArtists and now motion picture special effects people are always inundating the public with their creations of missing links.
[b]==================================
Darwin goes on, over the next several pages, to explain why the geological record is so patchy. Essentially, fossilisation is a rare occurance. The victim must die in particular circumstances, in a specific kind of terrain, during a period of a specific kind of geological activity, before it has a chance of being f ...[text shortened]... art work of imaginative artists, who have painted what Evolutionists want to see, i.e. ape-men.
Programs like NOVA hope that the barrage of wishful thinking images of ape/people will make everyone just say "It must have been so."
08 Mar 08
===========================
So, the refutations and explanations of a lack of fine graduated species mean nothing to you?
That's not particularly compelling.
================================
Regardless of other reasons at the moment, remember,
Darwin said it would be a problem to his model. I am just agreeing with him.
08 Mar 08
Originally posted by jaywillThe key word is 'would'. It would be a problem if it could not be explained. It can. Hence, it is not a problem.
[b]===========================
So, the refutations and explanations of a lack of fine graduated species mean nothing to you?
That's not particularly compelling.
================================
Regardless of other reasons at the moment, remember,
Darwin said it would be a problem to his model. I am just agreeing with him.[/b]
Next ...