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.
Then the dice become extinct and another population of dice would have to be used. If there are no more dice then dice go the way of the passenger pigeon or the T-rex.
Yet in the propaganda, we keep being told 'selection' is creative. 'Selection' is just death.
Please provide a quote from any biology or evolutionists paper or book that says selection is just death. Death is used in selection to eliminate those not selected for.
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.
First, I don't proclaim a Godless paradigm, and your use of death as all or nothing isn't a representation of selection. Death occurs to individuals and selection occurs in populations. Some individuals die and some live to pass on their genes. Those individuals that pass on their genes more effectively have those genes become a higher percentage of the population at large. Death taking the less effectively breeding individuals and their progeny causes the more effectively breeding individuals to be selected for.
I realize that you know this but I repeated it for the layperson that might be confused by your statement about death.
It surprises me that you can't mount a better assault against the theory of evolution...what with your in depth understanding of it and all.
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.)
No I meant percentages. Should I recommend a book on population dynamics so you can follow this simple explanation?
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.
No there is not except that a beneficial mutation is one that enhances survival. A mutation cannot even be categorized as beneficial or neutral until its effect on the survival of the individual organism is observed. Typically, the beneficial mutation doesn't guarantee the individual organism will survive but it will help more of the individuals with that mutation will survive than those without it.
[quote][quote]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?
Well your statements about the theory were incorrect and you claim to have in depth knowledge of Darwin's theory. I just came to the conclusion that you chose to misrepresent it. My apologies . I thought you actually understood the basics of natural selection.
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. Darwin never said that the pressure would kill off all the less fit individual instantly or even in one or two generations. The basic theory states that the less fit will become less represented in the population over a period of time. How quickly this occurs depends on the intensity of the pressure. You have Darwin quotes that say otherwise?
[quote][quote]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.
Yet when you check out the writings of the inquisitors, they feel like they are getting more people to heaven by forcing them to convert. The movement started with justifications based on Jesus's Great Commandment. They believed they were doing God's work.
But one can easily demonstrate that eugenics derives directly from Darwinism.
Then do so. Lots of talk but no substance.
In fact, his formula of preferentially killing female babies has been implemented to the letter in Communist China.
First, provide a quote that Darwin advocated this. Second, provide some evidence that the Communist government in China requires that female babies get killed/aborted. Third, provide something indicating that the theory of evolution provides link between a higher male population and the fitness of that population.
If you can't do that then your statement is simply what we usually get from you....emotional appeal by using a nonsensical statement.
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.
So you agree that Darwin said those things shouldn't be done and can provide no quotes that he agreed with those practices.
Even if he became a eugenics promoter, that has nothing to do with the truth/falseness of evolution.
