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.
Ya think?
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.
You're a hoot!
...and you just got done saying how the dice go extinct...
Anything more you'd like to add? I'm not sold on the creative power of the selection god. Killing isn't a creative activity. According to evolutionism, when the selection god isn't killing, it isn't doing its job. Just looking at that picture of all those skulls RAZD is so fond of posting one sees an appropriate symbol for this evogod.
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,{snip}
Yes you do. You claim God doesn't get involved.
And you've tried time and again to convince us to accept the proposal that some god just sparked the big bang and went dormant. You have not said whether this is what you actually believe, but it would be a mighty unusual man who tries to persuade folks to accept beliefs he does not himself hold.
And this isn't about what you say. It's about what evolutionism says. Evolutionism says anyone who even suggests God
may have been involved must fail their class / lose their job / be locked up / etc. Some evolutionists say it in words, and some are too cowardly, but reveal it in deed.
(A little info on such) ...and your use of death as all or nothing isn't a representation of selection. Death occurs to individuals and selection occurs in populations.
Says who? And why would anyone try to hide the death involved here?
There is one obvious motive: sanitizing eugenics. "We're not killing anyone - we're just selecting populations". Now perhaps you have another, more subtle motive you'd care to share? Justify the spin, if you can.
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.
Progeny? Dead beings aren't observed to produce much in the way of progeny. If they did, the selection god would be out of business, wouldn't it?
I realize that you know this but I repeated it for the layperson that might be confused by your statement about death.
Actually, I think you say these things in hopes that the layperson may become confused. I don't expect you'll be very successful.
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.
Thanks for pitching in & demonstrating the symptoms of evosickness. Hearing about them is one thing, but seeing them manifested should have a much greater impact. I hope and pray folks will take the issue seriously.
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?
If you have a book that claims a percentage of 'selected' lifeforms will have progeny... For curiosity's sake, I might take a peek.
... 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.
Nonsense! They do it all the time. Where have you been? It is claimed that dinosaurs with feathers would have a better chance of survival, but it hasn't been observed. All the stories of this or that evolving involve the unobserved.
And you contradict yourself big as day. You just got done saying the selection god doesn't care about individuals.
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.
Nice of you to concede this. Ah, if only you were an authority, that the rest would listen...
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.
If you thought I understood them, why would you undertake to confuse me?
Oops! That's a pretty stupid question, isn't it.
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.
No. And I never said he did. His concern was that lax 'selection' would allow too many of the 'unfit' to survive. That's the opposite of the commonplace neoDarwinist idea of instant elimination.
Were it not for your demonstrated symptoms, I would conclude you are deliberately misstating what I said Darwin said.
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?
"Less represented"? What kind of pathetic euphemism is that for 'dead'?
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.
Jesus never commanded anyone to force anyone to convert. It's not a big surprise (to most of us) that those doing so (as if one could!) would misstate things in their writings. It would be very surprising if anyone failed to recognize such as misstatements.
How you conclude "they believed they were doing God's work" is... that is just an astonishingly irrational conclusion.
But one can easily demonstrate that eugenics derives directly from Darwinism.
Then do so. Lots of talk but no substance.
Right... Facts
are substance. (Well, relevant facts are. Don't take this as an invitation to spam irrelevancies.)
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.
Ah yes! The "words speak louder than actions" paradigm, so essential to evolutionism.
Second, provide some evidence that the Communist government in China requires that female babies get killed/aborted.
I care not what they say. I care what they
do. What manner of pinhead do you take me for?
Third, provide something indicating that the theory of evolution provides link between a higher male population and the fitness of that population.
Again, what kind of pinhead do you take me for? You do not dictate how I proceed.
The things I said are true, and can be verified fairly easily. You already know this because it's been discussed before.
All you offered then is the same excuse you offer now:
Even if he became a eugenics promoter, that has nothing to do with the truth/falseness of evolution.
How does this salvage your false analogy? In order for the analogy to be accurate, both sides must either be true, or both must be false. If one is true, and the other is false, your analogy fails. This is the case.
I humbly submit
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33487#Post33487for any who may be unfamiliar with the history of the evolutionist movement(s). It's not comprehensive; but it's a start.
In Descent of Man[/i], chapter two one reads
Malthus has discussed these several checks, but he does not lay stress enough on what is probably the most important of all, namely infanticide, especially of female infants and the habit of procuring abortion.
One gets a fuller picture by reading the whole chapter, which I consider to be [i]Darwinism in a nutshell. In this single chapter, Darwin explains the alleged benefits of infanticide/abortion eugenics/racism, and at least some forms of Social Darwinism.
