Well, it looks like I missed some nonsense. Fortunately I have a fully functional and operational scroll bar.
I was talking about the beneficial mutation, but as you have observed, this applies equally well to the imaginary nonlife which some say evolved into life.
Actually, my choice of terms could be better. Under the paradigm, 'Selection' is actually a process of pure subtraction. Nothing is ever 'selected for'.
Does your statement even make sense?
Of course. Why do you ask? Damage control?
If I am rolling 100 six sided dice of the normal gaming variety and perform the selection that you suggest by removing all the dice that don't land with six facing up, then by default the dice with the six facing up are selected for. They are the dice still on the table. The other dice are eliminated.
Selection is death. It isn't creative. If no 6's come up, as the selector, your role is to kill them all, every last one. You don't get to flip a 1 over and make a 6.
Yet in the propaganda, we keep being told 'selection' is creative. 'Selection' is just death.
Consider the analogy of a classroom. The only students who are 'selected' are those who fail the grade. Even those who squeak by with a D- pass. Selection only cares about pass or fail. Darwin was deeply concerned about this sort of thing. He insisted that all populations of lifeforms must undergo frequent famines (or similar disasters). In the classroom analogy, this would be like raising the standard, and failing anyone with a C or even a B.
Please quote where Darwin claims that it is an all or nothing scenario.
Please explain how death under a Godless paradigm can be anything other than all-or-nothing, if you don't accept this as self-evident.
Selection works in percentages. Beneficial mutations allow those members of the population to be more likely to have more offspring than those without that beneficial mutation. Over a number of generations this beneficial mutation will permeate the population because those that have it have more offspring than those that don't.
I'm guessing you meant 'probabilities' rather than 'percentages'. And I'm not surprised that you've forgotten past discussions. (I'm hoping, but far from certain, you don't mean to say something can be 22% dead.)
Now it's not hard to understand that dead lifeforms do less begetting than live ones. I don't think we need to find a Darwin quote in order to understand the matter, either.
The actual issue with probabilities involves whether or not 'selection' can successfully 'find' the less fit and 'select' them; and whether or not it will 'screw up' and 'select' the carrier of the imagined beneficial mutation. But based on experience, I'm confident nobody wants to go there. The evogod's actually not omniscient. There's nothing in nature that would require a beneficial mutation to survive if one ever should occur.
You are well aware of this point in Darwin's theory yet choose to misrepresent it.
Oh? Just up and accuse me, eh? Well, why not? Everyone else does. ...And you had the nerve to ask me if my statement made sense?
You are well aware that Darwin insisted intense pressure was required to kill off all but the most fit. We've discussed it before. Neither you nor LindaLou could twist your own junk to match Darwin, nor could you make your own junky ideas
or Darwin's match
observations made in the real world.http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33734#Post33734is a good spot for any who missed this stuff, or need to refresh their memory. It's not a particularly brief exchange, as I recall.
Eugenics is a part of the theory of evolution in the same way that the Spanish inquisition is part of Jesus's teachings....ie, not part of it at all. What someone does with the truth does not change it from being the truth.
Just another false analogy. The practices of the Spanish Inquisition were quite obviously contrary to Jesus' teachings.
Eugenics is merely the practical application of evolutionism. One could that this 'science' of yours shouldn't be applied in the real world.
But one can easily demonstrate that eugenics derives directly from Darwinism. In fact, his formula of preferentially killing female babies has been implemented to the letter in Communist China.
You can produce a couple of isolated quotes from Darwin where he said things like this shouldn't be done. He didn't convince his friends and relations, and if he felt strongly about it, why is there no record of heated discussions on the matter? His letters show he discussed all other aspects of evolutionism, even very small details. We know founders of eugenics by their names and writings. He knew them much more closely.
