Natural Selection

[Freedom777]

Here it is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v6n4_moth.asp

 

[SplitRock]

Leave it to AIG to redefine what evolution is. "Natural selection is not evolution and evolution is not a change in gene frequency in a population" (paraphrased). A typical creationist way of winning an argument... redefine all the terms to your liking. Oh by the way, natural selection works on populations, not species (so much for the button analogy).

 

[troodon]

Here's an example of "new information" being introduced into a population:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

This mutation, coupled with natural selection, created a whole new species of bacteria. Wow, evolution in action!

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 03:47 AM troodon said this in Post #3

Here's an example of "new information" being introduced into a population:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

This mutation, coupled with natural selection, created a whole new species of bacteria. Wow, evolution in action!

Its still bacteria.
What, do you thinks its kids are going to get up and walk

 

[wblastyn]

Its still bacteria.
What, do you thinks its kids are going to get up and walk

Do you even try to understand evolution?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:19 AM wblastyn said this in Post #5


Do you even try to understand evolution?

Yes, actually I do, and I am amazed that I ever bought into it (go figure, I was young and gullible)

 

[lithium.]

Today at 10:36 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #6


Yes, actually I do, and I am amazed that I ever bought into it (go figure, I was young and gullible)

Well it really doesn't look like you really understand what "evolution" is.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:48 AM seesaw said this in Post #7



Well it really doesn't look like you really understand what "evolution" is.

Yes, of course you need to believe that.

 

[wblastyn]

Yes, of course you need to believe that.

We don't need to believe anything. If you know so much about evolution why don't you act like it?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:05 PM wblastyn said this in Post #9


We don't need to believe anything. If you know so much about evolution why don't you act like it?

I know enough to know that tomorrow it could be thrown out the window as old news.
You know this and still you fight for it.
Amazing.

 

[Zadok001]

Follower of Christ:

You clearly DON'T know 'enough' about it, or you wouldn't have made the "get up and walk" comment. There are multiple threads here on what evolution is and is not. Go read them.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:09 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #11

Follower of Christ:

You clearly DON'T know 'enough' about it, or you wouldn't have made the "get up and walk" comment. There are multiple threads here on what evolution is and is not. Go read them.

Whats odd is, you all take those kinds of OBVIOUS remarks literally, and then blow right past the literal description in Genesis.

I am starting to see the problem.
You all need to be taught how to tell literal from non-literal.

You surely dont think that even an ignorant christian like me doesnt know about how evolution works (maybe my mind really is going ).

Maybe I will need to drop the sarcasm and irony as I had to do with Dennis Mckinsey and crew so I dont confuse everyone.

 

[wblastyn]

I know enough to know that tomorrow it could be thrown out the window as old news.
You know this and still you fight for it.
Amazing.

I know enough that creationism was falsified over 100 years ago, evolution has lasted up to now and will for a long time I'm sure.
You know this and you still fight for it.
Amazing.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am always amused by the creationist "speciation has never been witnessed" arguement. Show examples of observed speciation in mosquitoes, salamanders, bacteria, yew plants, flowers, etc. etc., and they will respond with "well they are still salamanders, yew plants, yeast, or whatever". Its called "moving goal posts" .

 

[Zadok001]

Today at 06:15 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #12


Whats odd is, you all take those kinds of OBVIOUS remarks literally, and then blow right past the literal description in Genesis.

I am starting to see the problem.
You all need to be taught how to tell literal from non-literal.

You surely dont think that even an ignorant christian like me doesnt know about how evolution works (maybe my mind really is going ).

Maybe I will need to drop the sarcasm and irony as I had to do with Dennis Mckinsey and crew so I dont confuse everyone.

I'm not certain I understand.  Please clarify.  Are you saying that I'm 'blowing past' Genesis?  I read it three years ago, again one year ago, again last week, and again today and yesterday.  I don't think I'm 'blowing past' it.

I certainly know the semantic difference between literal and non-literal, but I do NOT understand how two people can claim to interpret Genesis 'literally' and come to different conclusions about it.  (JohnR7's local flood scenario is a good example.)  Is that what you meant?

I am fairly certain that you don't understand evolution sufficiently to argue against it.  Evolution is thoroughly described in other threads.  If you wish to prove that you understand evolution, please state in your own words the tenets thereof.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:29 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #1

Here it is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v6n4_moth.asp

Yeah, the old "shell game".

I know creationists never like to actually read Darwin, but let's look at what Darwin said natural selection is:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized.  This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

First, notice that this is a method of preservation, not elimination.  That destroys the "sieve" analogy.

What we have here, Freedom, is a process to give design.  Folow the steps and design is assured.

The environment presents design problems to the population.  Each individual (with its variation) represents a possible design solution to the problem.  By setting up a "struggle for existence" or competition among the individuals, selection picks the best design solutions from those available.  Then it preserves those solutions by inheritance.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:15 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #4


Its still bacteria.
What, do you thinks its kids are going to get up and walk

Great example of shifting claims, FoC.  The original claim was that evolution did not result in new information!  The example of the mutation giving a new enzyme to degrade nylon.  As such, it refutes the claim that evolution does not give rise to new information.

In order to avoid that, you change the claim that the new species is still a bacteria. Well, DUH!!  Bacteria is a whole DOMAIN of life, consisting of millions of species. One speciation event is not going to get out of the Domain.

But, what is the reality in the biological world?  Species.  That's all there are.  Groups of species -- such as bacteria -- are simply human constructs. Once you get species, you have just "proved" evolution.  After all, what was the title of Darwin's book?  Origin of the Species. Your argument is simply a semantic trick to avoid that evolution was observed.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:15 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #12

Whats odd is, you all take those kinds of OBVIOUS remarks literally, and then blow right past the literal description in Genesis.

I am starting to see the problem.
You all need to be taught how to tell literal from non-literal[/I].

My irony meter just blew up again.  This is coming from someone that can't see the "OBVIOUS" signs that Genesis 1-8 is not literal.  Since you can't tell literal from non-literal, how do you think you can teach anyone else this?

You surely dont think that even an ignorant christian like me doesnt know about how evolution works

Based on the evidence of what you write, you don't.

Being Christian doesn't mean being ignorant.  Your ignorance has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess now is the time for you to define evolution, then. Tell us about it.

 

[Follower of Christ]

This kills me.

God creates His creatures with an ability to diversify and adapt.
Some nutcase who blames God for his daughters death comes along and jots down some notes about this God-given ability he observes, and we're all supposed to hail him as some great brainiac.