"Natural Selection" Is Flawed...

[Old Rocks]

ok

No. It isn't okay.

Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.
Educators need to do better.

Propagation of the species by survival of the fittest sounds Darwinian to me.

Actually, that part is correct. Survival of the fittest insures the DNA stays true to the species and remains strong in the offspring. DNA malfunctions die off. Another reason why evolution doesn't work. It relies on millions of years of the exact same defect occurring to create a completely different species. Turns out it is actually imprinted in DNA NOT to make the same mistake twice.
Often if an animal has a defect, the others will kill it and prevent the defect from reoccurring. And where are the millions of years worth of "transition species" bones?
Who created the library of vital information within a cell to enable it to sustain it's life? If you think random pond slime did it, google some information on the complexity of DNA.

Dont get upset but do you consider white people to be a DNA malfunction? You know that unless unnatural steps are taken Nature will correct its mistake.

Not at all. Most people with pale skins are found where there is often dim sunlight, and that paleness helps them with vitamin D. It is a survival characteristic for those areas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Darwin specifi

Origin of species... Not life. Species... You clearly do not understand his work.

Clearly you dont understand his work. Nor do you realize that species are life.

Darwin was not haphazard in his writings, he specifically excluded using the term the orgin of life. Here is a reliable source stating that fact. If you choose to refute this, please provide a source, just as I have to support my position.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027101415.htm

Charles Darwin Really Did Have Advanced Ideas About The Origin Of Life
Date:
November 2, 2009
Source:
FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Summary:
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the 'Creator' in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.

i will use your own source. Obviously you didnt read it all the way through. I knew this information long ago.

"A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that "the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable," gave the researchers their clue.

In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy."

Thank you. In other words, Darwin wrote in a letter he could IMAGINE that life could arrange itself into evolutionary matter, but he never included it his theory of evolution, and for obvious reasons, there is no scientific evidence. He may have felt, or in his words, imagined it could happen that way, but was never compelled to formally propose it as a theory. Glad we cleared it up. The father of evolutionary theory was not CONVINCED that life began with evolution the same way he was CONVINCED that evolution took place after life existed. Whew...that was exhausting, but now you can see that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory on the beginning of life. Amen.

My argument was not if he included it in his book. My argument is that when he said the "origin" he literally mean that. Like I said before if he didnt mean that he would have said the "influencing". I am glad you tried it but I had to cut you down in your attempt.

Abiogenesis is an entirely different subject than evolution.

Abiogenesis: 7 Scientific Theories for the Origin of Life... and One New One!

 

[Old Rocks]

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.

Well, your post is correct, and you are most likely an engineer. For you use the word theory in a way no scientist would. Creationism is not a theory, it hardly makes the grade as a hypothesis. There actually is some evidence for the Big Bang theory. And it is considered a rational hypothesis. As we develop more powerful telescopes and continue to look further back in time, we may find evidence that can prove or disprove that hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

Thats a great opinion but since you cant prove it then it will just remain an opinion. Personally I dont see anything supernatural about it. Its math.

Math doesn't create anything. It is a method by which things are measured.

Math and mathematics are much more than that. As far as creating anything, without the modern math we could not understand nature at all. In fact, it is interesting that much of the math that we use today was created far before there was actually a use for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

You are free to pick any source you like. Evolutionary theory basically says that DNA alters itself to adapt to the environment. The claim is that evolution disproves the existence of a creator.

No, that is not at all what evolution says. It says there are random changes in the genes, most of which are not advantages to the organism. However, enough occur that are advantages that organisms evolve because those with the mutations have more progeny than those that do not.

 

[Old Rocks]

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

Pure bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

You are free to pick any source you like. Evolutionary theory basically says that DNA alters itself to adapt to the environment. The claim is that evolution disproves the existence of a creator.

Some may claim that, I certainly don't claim evolution is incompatible with the idea of a creator. My issue with you is your claim that evolution has been offered as a creator. I've never seen or heard that before you said some intelligent people believe it.

Depends on how you look at it. Its an either or question to most people. The masses of people that believe in creationism say god created life as it is. The masses that believe in evolution believe a rock came alive and begin to evolve.

You are becoming silly.

 

[Asclepias]

No. It isn't okay.

Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.
Educators need to do better.

Propagation of the species by survival of the fittest sounds Darwinian to me.

Actually, that part is correct. Survival of the fittest insures the DNA stays true to the species and remains strong in the offspring. DNA malfunctions die off. Another reason why evolution doesn't work. It relies on millions of years of the exact same defect occurring to create a completely different species. Turns out it is actually imprinted in DNA NOT to make the same mistake twice.
Often if an animal has a defect, the others will kill it and prevent the defect from reoccurring. And where are the millions of years worth of "transition species" bones?
Who created the library of vital information within a cell to enable it to sustain it's life? If you think random pond slime did it, google some information on the complexity of DNA.

Dont get upset but do you consider white people to be a DNA malfunction? You know that unless unnatural steps are taken Nature will correct its mistake.

Not at all. Most people with pale skins are found where there is often dim sunlight, and that paleness helps them with vitamin D. It is a survival characteristic for those areas.

Not true. Pale skin was a genetic mutation that started in the area we call the middle east and India. Both those areas were and are very hot. People with that genetic defect most likely migrated to colder areas but the facts show pale skin didnt appear as a coping mechanism to cold and less light like we have been led to believe.

 

[Whocares386]

As you can understand from that article, humanity may be extinct in the future if we don't educate these ignorant people. There is no mechanism just like the natural selection for us anymore so that we may destroy ourselves because of ignorant ones' decisions.

Population Increase and Its Implications