|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
There I have totally answered question 121, 124, 122, ... False. You have written posts that do not relate to the evidence of selection provided, rather you go off on some Gish Gallop on other topics all together. This is you failing to answer those posts:
quote: Your response to the message: none.
quote: Your response to the message: none.
quote: Your reply:
quote: Note the complete absence of the word "selection" in your reply, and the total absence of any reference to the selection observed in the listed posts. Your thread is not about transforming fur to scales or missing links, but debunking selection, specifically natural selection of specific traits that have differential success in survival and reproduction, and as such it is a total fail response. See Message 1 if you are confused about the topic. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist. Curiously this thread is not about creating a "NEW KIND" nor is it about your racism fantasy, it is about selection. You lose. Would you care to try again and address the issue of selection as shown in Message 121, Message 122 and Message 124. Your Message 125 was a complete failure to address the issue. You lost again. For reference on what selection means, please see Message 136 Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine. Except nobody claimed color created a new KIND or species. You lose. You have yet to establish that "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and I suggest that you return to that topic and do that before spamming other threads with this assertion. You lose.
Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND. And again, nobody claimed this. What you see is one variety of Pepper moth was selected preferentially over another variety ... of the same species, and thus is an example of selection in action. You lose again.
That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change. The lie is yours, by putting words in people's mouths that are not what they say. Another loss.
The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead.... Says the person who appears to be totally incapable of debunking selection ... especially in the face of several examples. Posting a bunch of incoherent phrases, while technically "a reply" is not a response to the substance of the previous post. You have not addressed selection. Fail. Loserby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole. Curiously purebred dogs are controlled and maintained by high artificial selection pressure, where any pup that doesn't measure up is dropped. Bad example for use against natural selection, but excellent example of why creationist arguments are wrong -- their posited unevidenced position only occurs in extreme artificial selection conditions, not in the wild. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
'
Darwin used many examples of animal breeding to support his arguments for natural selection. ... Yes, and that different breeds were the result of that. Purebreds however don't let new mutations change the purebred lineage, so that changes to pretty high selection pressure for stasis. When any offspring are removed from the breeding pool some genetic material is lost and what is left is more and more inbreeding with associated problems. Let them live wild and they will revert to more variegated dogs in a generation or two by breeding with other dogs. If they survive.
Since humans are part of nature then deliberate selection by humans is a form of natural selection. Not by anyone's normal definitions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Human adult lactose tolerance All mammals are born lactose tolerant so they can digest their mother's milk. This normally switches off after weaning. Human adult lactose tolerance is simply a case of a broken switch. Lactose intolerance - creation.com. So it's a mutation that allows adults to use milk as a source of nutrition. Sounds like a beneficial mutation to me, one that would be selected when other sources are poor. That it has spread so far around the world demonstrates that (a) it was selected, and (b) that it was beneficial. As for stating truths about creation.com being an ad hominum attack, I put that against you using them as an appeal to authority fallacy -- and that those truths expose them as not being a true authority rather than an ad hominum. Try again. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nylonase, fine tuning "This is the story of a pre-existing enzyme ... Can you tell me what enzyme is not pre-existing?
... which improved its activity toward nylon by first one, then another selectable mutation. In other words this is a completely plausible case of gene duplication, mutation, and selection operating on a pre-existing enzyme to improve a pre-existing low-level activity, ... Notice the complete acceptance of mutation and selection. Notice that the action of the enzyme was improved by the mutations, thereby demonstrating they are beneficial. Once again, in plain english, they accept selection of beneficial mutations as having occurred. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It is the theory of evolution that relies on the gain of copious quantities of genetic information. ... Curiously that is a creationist claim, and a falsehood. The theory of evolution could not give squat about "copious quantities of genetic information" -- just mutation and selection, things we see occurring every day. In addition, your reference to "copious quantities of genetic information" means nothing until you can measure and quantify "information" and actually show increases and decreases. That's one of the ways we know that evolution science doesn't care about it. The other reason is that evolution appears to work very well without any measurement of pseudo-parameters like "information" -- just what actually happens. So evolution is about mutations and selection, selection of mutations that are beneficial (like the lactase mutation and the nylonase mutation), where selection of beneficial mutations occurs because they improve survival or reproduction. I am wondering why you are presenting examples of mutations and their selection on a thread titled "Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' " ... unless you are following bluegenes suggestion of posting examples of selection occurring. In which case, good job, these are good examples. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The God of Selection is only alive and selecting if she has beneficial mutations to select from. If there are no benefical mutations and this lie of evolution is realised and admitted, it means the 'God of Selection' can not select from beneficial mutations. Because of her death and non existence, it means she can NOT let some of them live, via her divine selective process using her divine environmental conditions...... So still no logic or evidence to debunk selection ... just more empty assertions. Fail. Loser. Still no reply to the issues presented to you of actual examples of actual selection. Fail. Loser.
Without beneficial mutations, she dies and is no more, and evolutionists can no longer honor her and pretend she is non random and alive. Still no reply to the issues presented to you of actual examples of beneficial mutations. Fail. Loser.
And HEREIN we aren't allowed in Propose New Topics to write about the Proofs of benefical mutations existing' Nope. As clearly stated by Admin your topics are not going to be promoted because you have yet to show any response to the issues, the information, and the evidence that has been raised in this and other threads, to show any errors or mistakes in those posts. Replying to a posts with more empty assertion is not a response if it ignores and does not discuss the issues and evidence raised in those posts. Once again, you lose. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Babies were born as is, since their creation..... An assertion of your personal belief with no supporting evidence provided. Irrelevant to the topic. Fail.
The Lord or if you like their designer designed them ... Davidjay Message 1: PS) But lets stick totally to biology and science, and maybe math rather than allowing their religious views to enter IN. Thanks Sad that you can't even comply with your own provisions, to say nothing about complying with forum guidelines (such as Rule 4: Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.)
... able to process mothers milk because it is BY FAR the best for them including the amazing abilities after giving birth, that makes mothers milk absolutely important and vital rather than cow milk and its economic profit from manufacturers..... Its by design.... no mutation put all those ingeedients in a mothers milk, to help her new born. Please study and learn about procreation and the miracle of birth and mothers milk. Curiously, nobody has said otherwise. This is just you going off on a tangent instead of dealing with the evidence for selection and beneficial mutations. This is how losers fail.
No mutation has ever taken place, we still are the same as in the BEGINNING. This is actually false on a couple of levels. First the lactase mutation has been identified and it's selection and spread in the general population has even been mapped. Second your body is undergoing a general process of cell replacement over time, such that you have a new skin every 3 years or so, and other parts every 10 years or so. In the process of cell replication mutations often occur, and this is a source of cancers and other changes.
quote: Mutations found, documented, identified in different populations, selection for the beneficial mutation is documented in the spread of the gene through much of the general population. Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose.
No selection process has taken place..... no mutations have been induced by the environment as we have already determined that beneficial or harmful mutations are not induced, and are suppsoedly only at random. Except that the evidence shows, from this and other examples presented on this thread, that selection is happening all around us, continually. Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose.
Yes, GMOS etc from man are screwing up people after birth for economic sake of the rich and powerful. But no mutation has ever taken place that makes cows milk more beneficial than a mothers milk. We cant change horses in mid stream with every new thread and discount old truths we have already established HERE. We need to be consistent, and have principles.... not flip flop with every new responses or responses. The god of selection is dead, because no beneficial mutations have ever occured by chance or by non random selection. She is dead, and beneficial mutations never existed More meaningless garbage designed to deflect the discussion than to answer the issues of mutations and selection being observed and documented. GIGO and spam. Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose. You have yet to provide any evidence that would debunk selection, all you do is repeat empty unevidenced assertions of your personal opinions. That is not complying with rule 4 that I can see -- can you explain how it does? Here it is again:
quote: You have failed to provide "reasoned support" your thesis with a single piece of evidence (to say nothing of "additional evidence" ...) in 37 posts so far on this thread. One would think that anyone starting a thread would have objective empirical evidence to substantiate it ... at least in this science forum. Epic failure. Loser. All you have is assertions and repetition, not evidence. You Lose. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are several mutations are cause a loss of genetic information ... How do you know? How is that "information" measured and quantified?
So only after you have read the referenced articles, try again. Or you could read Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments and get back to me. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information? No. Information is undefined and has no metric to measure whether it is there or not, nor compare from one species to another, therefore it can have no need to be incorporated into any scientific field, to say nothing of theory. "Information" is useless babble to science. Science operates on what can be measured, what can be quantified and compared empirically.
Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution; Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities Nope. These are invalid conclusion reached on the basis of a false premise. The topic is debunking selection not fantasies about made-up parameters Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Should I cross post my two previous messages in "How do you define the word Evolution?" or is that frowned on? I think they belong in that forum more so than this one. If it were me, I would start a whole new thread on the topic of information. Present what you think it is and how it can be measured, and then use these two previous posts as arguments based on the presentation to show how it develops a deeper understanding of the parameter... Good luck. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No Percy this thread is not for me only to debunk selection. A thread is for all to discuss, pro and con. ... But it is your job as the thread author to defend your topic against evidence that invalidates it. Out of curiosity I just went back through the thread and isolated all the posts that presented evidence or typical situations where natural selection occurs -- actually occurs --
-- and the lack of response debate from you means that you are not doing anything to defend your topic against the evidence that invalidates your assertion. The score is 32 to 0 so far, and you haven't even left the starting gate ... if you are ever going to defend your topic, now looks like a good time to get going. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
This is really pathetic.
Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before.. As per usual, evolutionists run when asked a question, because they know they cant answer it ? I repeat, Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before. What new beneficial mutations have occured that make us different than our ancestors babies, I mean our human ancestor babies. Yes they are different, different in every generation, because you have mutations your parents did not have. This is measured and documented and it would be dumb and stupid to say otherwise.
Do label and explain these beneficial mutations rather than trying to say, mutations are shown by color, because we all know or should know that color is not a mutational change, just a superficial one... evolionists hope we are all different and branching ... Curiously they don't all have to be beneficial to be different, so once again you dance around issues instead of being straight-forward. Or even (heaven forfend) attempt to learn something. More amusingly they don't need to result in branching of species to be different, hence variations in skin tones, eye colors, hair types, height, etc etc etc
... but creationist know we are all the same and EQUAL. Which is why you can get blood transfusions from anyone, no worries. And I bet if you try real hard you can come up with something that is even more ignorant and uninformed.
Notice how they demand answers to their side topics but never answer the questions posed to them. Notice how repeating this after multiple answers are made is just outright lying, a desperate ploy trying to cause a stink rather than deal with any of the multitude of issues raise that invalidate his arguments. Documented 32 issues raised in response to Davidjay comments and he has not responded in good faith to any of them, instead making posts like this. Sad. But the first sign of cognitive dissonance is to mock the dissonant information. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evolutionists are dumber than the bones they worship and fantasize about...... Its a lie, a blatant deceptive lie. This making evolutionists who say this lie, liars. Says the person who whines to admin about not being respected, yet this is his SOP.
... I repeat, color change is not a sign and proof of evolution, its merely a color change adaption the Lord gives moths and even people. ... Color change is due to selection occurring, documented and recorded showing it to be a fact that selection occurs. This invalidates your base assertion of this thread. You are wrong.
... Peoples colour does not mean they are mutating into a new improved race or into an inferior race... And nobody said it was. Black mice are better adapted to living on lava bedsTan mice are better adapted to living on tan soil Black mice evolved from tan mice in two separate locations via two different mutations, which allowed black mice to take advantage of the lava bed ecology You, however, seem to be confused about evolution and selection being racist, but have yet to demonstrate it.
And yet evolutionists in their desperation have no other proofs so cling to their color change as if it is a beneficial change that means organs can evolve and systems can evolve. Which is it more beneficial to be on lava beds -- black or tan?Which is it more beneficial to be on tan soils -- black or tan? Which are "superior" mice -- black or tan? Inquiring minds want to know. (anyone want to wager on when Davidjay will answer this question already asked several times on this thread?) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024