Natural selection, naturally wrong

[Aussie Pete]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this, but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways. I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms. It's about as sensible as any other godless theory.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

 

[sfs]

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this

I mean, other than the fact that we can trivially observe natural selection acting as a mechanism for evolution in the lab and in the wild, no, no reason.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

The article is hilarious. It reads like it was written by a high school student mocking something he doesn't understand. There's a reason scientists pay no attention to creationists.

 

[BeyondET]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this, but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways. I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms. It's about as sensible as any other godless theory.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

The site is creation evolution is that something your ok with?

 

[Aussie Pete]

The site is creation evolution is that something your ok with?

It's a site devoted to debunking evolution but it also presents the evolutionist point of view. This is in order to critique what evolutionists are claiming. I mostly agree with what they have to say. I don't always understand the more technical dissertations. I'm not a scientist.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution.

It's an agency of evolution, but not the only one. But we know it is, because we can test this hypothesis. And it has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

There is no reason to believe this,

Other than direct observation. Would you like to learn about some examples?

but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways.

Science can't reject God. It's unable to say anything at all about the supernatural. Scientists can, of course. And many of us do. You've been misled about those things.

I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms.

As often pointed out, those who think they hate science, know very little about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a site devoted to debunking evolution but it also presents the evolutionist point of view.

But you've repeatedly shown us you don't even know what evolutionary theory says.

This is in order to critique what evolutionists are claiming. I mostly agree with what they have to say. I don't always understand the more technical dissertations. I'm not a scientist.

And because you don't understand these things, you were easy prey for those guys.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's take an example. From that mess you linked:

Anything biology needs to do, from great transformations to nothing (stasis), is natural selection’s specialty.

As Darwin pointed out, if a population is well-fitted in a relatively unchanging environment, then any change in the population genome would be likely to be harmful. And in those circumstances, natural selection would prevent much change. And not surprisingly when we test that hypothesis, the evidence confirms it.

This apparently drives creationists to distraction. Think about a market economy, to remove the religious biases.

If the supply of a commodity is approximately equal to the demand, then the price of that commodity will be in stasis. Won't change much. But if the supply should change or the demand should change, then the price will also change. The "hidden hand" of market forces will change or maintain the price as the conditions change or remain the same. Likewise, in a well-fitted population, if the environment should change, or if a useful new mutation appears, then we will see evolution increase.

A reasonably intelligent 7th grader could see this; it's hard to see why the guys who set up that website cannot see it.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Wallace used a phrase "natural processes of selection". He didn't state what processes. Darwin's frequently altered editions show him as not possessing firm insights.

S J Gould showed that when a lot of life forms were eliminated certain slightly mutated forms became more viable. e,g (to use an example I can think of) giant horses with different toes filled a niche. This suggests some background to mesoevolution.

Evolution far more widely, isn't yet (apart from contributions like Gould's) a bunch of hypotheses. That's why it doesn't yet make sense as a one-way partial analogue of markets.

 

[BeyondET]

It's an agency of evolution, but not the only one. But we know it is, because we can test this hypothesis. And it has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.


Other than direct observation. Would you like to learn about some examples?

Science can't reject God. It's unable to say anything at all about the supernatural. Scientists can, of course. And many of us do. You've been misled about those things.

As often pointed out, those who think they hate science, know very little about it.

Yea these folks are kings of the seas, adaptations that lead to gene change that is passed on to the next generation.

Bajau people 'evolved bigger spleens' for free-diving

In an example of human natural selection, Asia's Bajau people have evolved bigger spleens for diving.

www.bbc.com

And the kings of the mountains where most people would get sick and possibly die if you stay in Tibet to long.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00018.2014#:~:text=theirs%20(176).-,Lung%20Volumes%2C%20Diffusing%20Capacity%2C%20and%20Gas%20Exchange,38%2C%2079%2C%20146).

 

[sfs]

Wallace used a phrase "natural processes of selection". He didn't state what processes. Darwin's frequently altered editions show him as not possessing firm insights.

Darwin's difficulties concerned how variation arises and is inherited. His insights about natural selection were firm and largely correct.

S J Gould showed that when a lot of life forms were eliminated certain slightly mutated forms became more viable. e,g (to use an example I can think of) giant horses with different toes filled a niche. This suggests some background to mesoevolution.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the matter at hand.

Evolution far more widely, isn't yet (apart from contributions like Gould's) a bunch of hypotheses. That's why it doesn't yet make sense as a one-way partial analogue of markets.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Natural selection has been and is being intensively studied. It's far more than a bunch of hypotheses.

 

[stevevw]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this, but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways. I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms. It's about as sensible as any other godless theory.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

Yes some make out natural selection is almost magical in being able to account for everything from eyeballs to alturism. Natural selection is a real influence but its to what degree. There is no denying that nature will weed out the sick and weak. But in that sense its limited.

There are other influences that allow life to adapt besides NS. Living creatures and especially humans are not passive entities but are actually equipped to adapt to changing circumstances and work with nature to help them to get along and survive.

I think the issue for most is not that NS is not a real process but that its given far too much emphasis. Thats because I think theres an underlying metaphysical belief where people know that at least in appearence as Dawkins says that 'nature is designed'. There is some mind behind it.

Nature seems to be put together in such a way that its seems beyond chance. So attributing an almost supernatural power to NS helps acount for the incredible design we see. Its almost like the God of the gaps but instead the god is NS.

In other words the worldview of evolution acknowedges Gods creation when they use NS as the creative agent. They are attributing creation to that which is created. Its an easy way to explain the wonderful design when its beyond naturalisic explanations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes some make out natural selection is almost magical in being able to account for everything from eyeballs to alturism. Natural selection is a real influence but its to what degree. There is no denying that nature will weed out the sick and weak. But in that sense its limited.

It can, for example,produce a complex eye from simple organisms. In fact, all the steps in that evolution still exist in some phyla. But it can't give humans a second set of arms, because there are no intermediate stages that are useful. So it's limited in that sense. Nothing that violates that limit has been documented, although a gradual increase in complexity of eyes is demonstrated in a number of phyla:

I think the issue for most is not that NS is not a real process but that its given far too much emphasis. Thats because I think theres an underlying metaphysical belief where people know that at least in appearence as Dawkins says that 'nature is designed'. There is some mind behind it.

In the sense that God created a world in such a way that things emerge according to His will. This is the point of the ID advocate, Michael Denton:
(i) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe guarantee the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the fitness subthesis—FS),

(ii) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe guarantee the failure to emerge and persist of any form of life radically different from familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the uniqueness subthesis—US), and

(iii) that the laws of nature and boundary conditions governing our universe are ideally suited for the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life; that is, that every property of the laws of nature contributes optimally to the emergence and persistence of familiar and anthropomorphic life (a subthesis I will call the perfection subthesis—PS),

Book Review: Michael J. Denton’s Nature’s Destiny

Extended review and critique of Michael Denton’s second book.

ninewells.vuletic.com

But then this is pretty much theistic evolution. It's really no different than the sort of order that emerges in market economies. The "hidden hand" of supply and demand is the same as the "hidden hand" of natural selection. They both work because the universe is the way it is. Which in my opinion is because God made it that way.

As Denton mentions in the forward, this realization pretty much rules out any chance of special creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Natural selection has been and is being intensively studied. It's far more than a bunch of hypotheses.

After all, scientists can confidently make predictions about how particular mutations will affect the survival of organisms. Animal breeders and agronomists do this constantly, and they are most often right. Antibiotic protocols are designed to blunt the effects of natural selection, to prevent the evolution of antibiotic resistance. And they work.

 

[sfs]

After all, scientists can confidently make predictions about how particular mutations will affect the survival of organisms. Animal breeders and agronomists do this constantly, and they are most often right. Antibiotic protocols are designed to blunt the effects of natural selection, to prevent the evolution of antibiotic resistance. And they work.

We're constantly monitoring the genomes of malaria parasites, looking for signals that new loci are responding to natural selection, since those are likely signs that new drug resistance is developing.

 

[The Barbarian]

We're constantly monitoring the genomes of malaria parasites, looking for signals that new loci are responding to natural selection, since those are likely signs that new drug resistance is developing.

I assumed there are protocols for pesticide usage for the same reason we have antibiotic protocols to delay the evolution of resistance. Is that the case?

 

[sfs]

I assumed there are protocols for pesticide usage for the same reason we have antibiotic protocols to delay the evolution of resistance. Is that the case?

I don't know in general, but in the specific area of malaria control, yes, e.g. Dual Active Ingredient Long Lasting Insecticidal Nets (Dual AI LLIN) - IVCC

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Insecticides and asteroids do two kinds of things: they may or may not cause mutations that may or may not be viable, and they may or may not cause ecological gaps. In between, natural selection is a much more muted affair. And these causes aren't enough: exaptation needs also to occur (which most "darwinists" haven't caught up with yet).

As an aside, genetic drift and epigenetics mean that specific genes vary in their meaning.

An interesting book on how light stimulated the existence of light sensing organs is In the blink of an eye by Andrew Parker (2003).

 

[public hermit]

Natural Selection Is Darwin’s Genie – CEH

crev.info

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Natural Selection" is supposedly the mechanism for evolution. There is no reason to believe this, but science has never needed a reason to reject God, His word and His ways. I've mocked evolution in the past by talking about the Evolution Fairy sprinkling evo dust around to produce new life forms. It's about as sensible as any other godless theory.

The linked article is a breathtaking expose of how evolutionists bald faced contradict themselves with the principle of natural selection. I won't go into details. The article speaks for itself.

The "natural man" might not be able to speak to spiritual matters, but when it comes to matters concerning natural processes, virtually everyone can observe, learn, and do science. Thats the beautiful thing about this gift of divine grace, as I see it; science transcends our differences regarding culture, social location, language, religion, etc. Science often enjoys widespread intersubjective agreement, including evolution. That's a beautiful gift to humanity. To reject that not only makes people of faith look foolish for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ but it also denies a divine gift for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ. Evolution is not a matter of spiritual discernment. Rejecting it, however, is spiritually wrong-headed. In this case, you're making a category mistake and misusing scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

And these causes aren't enough: exaptation needs also to occur (which most "darwinists" haven't caught up with yet).

Darwin discovered exaption.

The idea that the function of a trait might shift during its evolutionary history originated with Charles Darwin (Darwin 1859). For many years the phenomenon was labeled "preadaptation", but since this term suggests teleology in biology, appearing to conflict with natural selection, it has been replaced by the term exaptation.

The idea had been explored by several scholars[a] when in 1982 Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba introduced the term "exaptation"...Exaptations include the co-option of feathers, which initially evolved for heat regulation, for display, and later for use in bird flight. Another example is the lungs of many basal fish, which evolved into the lungs of terrestrial vertebrates but also underwent exaptation to become the gas bladder, a buoyancy control organ, in derived fish.[11] A third is the repurposing of two of the three bones in the reptilian jaw to become the malleus and incus of the mammalian ear, leaving the mammalian jaw with just one hinge.[12]

Exaptation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Barbarian]

The "natural man" might not be able to speak to spiritual matters, but when it comes to matters concerning natural processes, virtually everyone can observe, learn, and do science. Thats the beautiful thing about this gift of divine grace, as I see it; science transcends our differences regarding culture, social location, language, religion, etc. Science often enjoys widespread intersubjective agreement, including evolution. That's a beautiful gift to humanity. To reject that not only makes people of faith look foolish for reasons that have nothing to do with Chris but it also denies a divine gift for reasons that have nothing to do with Christ. Evolution is not a matter of spiritual discernment. Rejecting it, however, is spiritually wrong-headed. In this case, you're making a category mistake and misusing scripture.

Yes. This is why people of all faiths, or even no faith at all can do science. Science is, by it's very methodology, agnostic. Science can't address the supernatural, even though scientists can.