It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...
Comments
101,641 - 101,660 of 136,242 Comments Last updated 33 min ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103641 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What is left after everything else dies is not "selection"; it is accidental.
Stop talking crap.

No. In general superior traits convey a higher probability that members of populations will survive long enough to breed and pass along their genetic lineage.

These are not selected IN so much as the ones who died are selected OUT.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103642 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just provide data in lieu of your personal mental meanderings. In particular, provide data confirming your point about intelligence-free "effort".
There are times when I actually like KAB.
KAB

United States

#103643 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
So you mean to tell me that there is no definition of selection that does not make reference to terms used in evolution theory?
Let me try:
"1. Singled out in preference; chosen...
2. Of special quality or value; choice...
...
4. Careful or refined in making selections; discriminating."
[http://www.thefreedictionary. com/select]
So which definition(s) are more likely to be general definitions of the word "select", as opposed to technical definition of the word "select"; my definitions or yours?
I dont see anything about any natural selection anywhere there.
You may refer to 2, but every quality is special; so that would be a very vague definition of "selection" as a technical terms in the context of "natural selection".
Tell the class why you shifted gears to the word "select" for your definitions when the word which has been under consideration and even used by you in your definition post is "selection".

BTW, indeed the words "select" and "selection" each have multiple accepted (standard) meaning options. Why are you trying to be unnecessarily/unjustifiably restrictive?
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#103644 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the class why you shifted gears to the word "select" for your definitions when the word which has been under consideration and even used by you in your definition post is "selection".
BTW, indeed the words "select" and "selection" each have multiple accepted (standard) meaning options. Why are you trying to be unnecessarily/unjustifiably restrictive?
Oh, the irony. A word ditherer calling out a word ditherer for word dithering.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103645 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the class why you shifted gears to the word "select" for your definitions when the word which has been under consideration and even used by you in your definition post is "selection".
BTW, indeed the words "select" and "selection" each have multiple accepted (standard) meaning options. Why are you trying to be unnecessarily/unjustifiably restrictive?
Go away.
KAB

United States

#103646 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well.
Rightly said.
Now explain to me how a mere mortal, who is nothing but a leech on the power of the Omnipotent... how can we use the power of God to act against God?
What power can we use to act against limitless power?
What authority can be used to over ride unlimited authority?
You're confusing acting against God's will, for which I provided a chapter and verse direct-from-the-Bible confirming example, with thwarting his purpose which, agreed, none of us can do (Is. 55:10,11). Specifically using the example cited, Cain's actions were against Yahweh's will but did not thwart his purpose. Cain's parents had another son, and Yahweh's purpose proceeded on apace.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103647 Dec 4, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an accident that those organisms more able to survive to reproduce will reproduce more successfully. Their characteristics have given them an advantage over others. Is it an accident that the NBA is almost exclusively populated by people 6'6" and taller? Or, is there a demonstrable advantage to being tall in the NBA? They aren't chosen because of their height, but because height carries with it a greater rate of success. Likewise, if, say, lactose tolerance imbued its carrier with a survival advantage over the lactose intolerant, then guess who's going to reproduce more successfully? That isn't an accident. Winning because you have an advantage isn't an accident.
You are playing checkers against an opponent who is equal to you intellectually and physically, but your side starts all 12 checkers, while your opponent starts with only one checker. If you win, is that an accident? Of course not!
You are in a race in NASCAR. You have tires that wear out faster than your competitors'. You are in the pits more frequently, which results in you losing more races. Is it an accident that you don't win any races? Of course not!
You're born without testicles. Is it an accident that you don't reproduce as much as your peers who were born with testicles? Of course not!
Perhaps you don't understand what "accident" means. We can apparently add that to the list of words you don't understand. It is getting quite extensive.
THe moment you assert that there is no Entity/Agent that caused creation; you implied that is is accidental, according to the general definition of "accident".

Furthermore, you analogies are quite irrelevant.

It is purely accidental that any organism survives, especially in light of the fact that they are continually experiencing mutations during their active life.

Mutations within other organisms in the population may make reproduction unsuccessful.

There is nothing to guarantee that the environment will be suitable once an organism is born.

There are predators that may consume even the most well adapted organisms... there are even diseases.

These are only a few of the odds stacked against living organisms
at every moment in their life.

Nature is not a controlled environment like your labs; shit happens quite frequently. And the slightest change can wipe out a whole species/population... the single drop in an essential element in their food supply could lead to malnourishment, and deformed offspring.

Natural selection is just another way of saying "accidental survival"; because the chances are that even the fittest will die. As a mater of fact, they eventually do.

What was unfit about dinosaurs by the way; and where are they now?

KAB

United States

#103648 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What is left after everything else dies is not "selection"; it is accidental.
Stop talking crap.
Accidental notwithstanding, it still fits the definition of "selection", albeit not intelligently accomplished.

I agree that those among us talking crap (evidenced by lack of data) should stop.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103649 Dec 4, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "natural selection" was chosen for a reason. Do you know what that reason was? It is very specifically DIFFERENT than something else that Darwin was comparing/contrasting the process to.
So, solve this equation.
Natural Selection =/=_______
Are you concealing information, or are you just making it up as the situation necessitates?

It doesnt matter why they chose to say "natural selection"; the fact is that it is absurd.
KAB

United States

#103650 Dec 4, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
There are times when I actually like KAB.
Hold onto that thought. Unless you've made some changes, your time will come again.
KAB

United States

#103651 Dec 4, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the irony. A word ditherer calling out a word ditherer for word dithering.
I beg to dither!
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103652 Dec 4, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. In general superior traits convey a higher probability that members of populations will survive long enough to breed and pass along their genetic lineage.
These are not selected IN so much as the ones who died are selected OUT.
What are those traits superior to?

How do you measure the superiority of any trait?

You certainly cant measure the superiority of a trait based on the traits of other organisms; because the fact that one is weak doesn't make the other strong. There is only a probability that is might be stronger.

You have yet to identify the element in nature which "selects", therefore selection is only an abstract idea.

The tendency for one organism to survive while the other tends to die, is purely accidental; not the influence of selection.

Notice that up to now they have not attempted to make a prediction regarding what is likely to be "selected". Thats because they dont know that anything is selected at any time.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103653 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold onto that thought. Unless you've made some changes, your time will come again.
I look forward to it.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103654 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the class why you shifted gears to the word "select" for your definitions when the word which has been under consideration and even used by you in your definition post is "selection".
BTW, indeed the words "select" and "selection" each have multiple accepted (standard) meaning options. Why are you trying to be unnecessarily/unjustifiably restrictive?
It doesnt matter how many different definitions they have: select will always be related to selection in the context that they are used. What is your point?

You obviously find fulfilment in words games.

Try Scrabble.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103655 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What are those traits superior to?
How do you measure the superiority of any trait?
You certainly cant measure the superiority of a trait based on the traits of other organisms; because the fact that one is weak doesn't make the other strong. There is only a probability that is might be stronger.
You have yet to identify the element in nature which "selects", therefore selection is only an abstract idea.
The tendency for one organism to survive while the other tends to die, is purely accidental; not the influence of selection.
Notice that up to now they have not attempted to make a prediction regarding what is likely to be "selected". Thats because they dont know that anything is selected at any time.
How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is a result? You seem to be thinking in terms of PRE-selection. There is no premeditation. No goal. Man, you've got one thick head.
KAB

United States

#103656 Dec 4, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Go away.
Yes, the clear truth, irrefutably presented, can be quite intimidating when you're not on its side. However, when you're completely committed to it you can proceed boldly without apprehension/angst.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103657 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing acting against God's will, for which I provided a chapter and verse direct-from-the-Bible confirming example, with thwarting his purpose which, agreed, none of us can do (Is. 55:10,11). Specifically using the example cited, Cain's actions were against Yahweh's will but did not thwart his purpose. Cain's parents had another son, and Yahweh's purpose proceeded on apace.
Ok so let me get this straight:

It is will that guides or fulfils purpose; yet you cant thwart purpose by acting against will?

So if I establish that the purpose of the sun is to shine, and by my will act so that the sun shines:

Are you saying that you cant affect my purpose for the sun to shine, by resisting my efforts to make the sun shine?

If purpose is supported by will; how can you frustrate will without thwarting purpose?

Do you see why you need to stop talking and start listening?
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103658 Dec 4, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is a result? You seem to be thinking in terms of PRE-selection. There is no premeditation. No goal. Man, you've got one thick head.
The suffix "ion" denotes an action or condition; none of which are final in and of themselves but are the results of actions and conditions and will in turn spur further actions and conditions.

Furthermore, natural selection cannot be a result while it is held to be the "engine which drives evolution".

You dont even know your own crap.
KAB

United States

#103659 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt matter how many different definitions they have: select will always be related to selection in the context that they are used. What is your point?
You obviously find fulfilment in words games.
Try Scrabble.
I stated my point in gameless words, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't answer my question and explain your actions with ANY words.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103660 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
The suffix "ion" denotes an action or condition; none of which are final in and of themselves but are the results of actions and conditions and will in turn spur further actions and conditions.
Furthermore, natural selection cannot be a result while it is held to be the "engine which drives evolution".
You dont even know your own crap.
I do. You seem incapable of understanding it. Cherry pick all the quotes or definitions you like. It's not helping your case.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min dragoon70056 115,153
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 5 min TedHOhio 182
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 17 min TedHOhio 172,501
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 2 hr ChristineM 300
Science News (Sep '13) 22 hr positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... (Feb '14) Aug 14 The Dude 1,831
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••