Those with a low threshold for boredom may want to skip this post. Previously I was challenged to present examples of evolutionists assuming lifeforms automatically get 'selected' if they're less fit.

As we saw, it wasn't difficult.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44777#Post44777

Originally Posted by CTD
No, I didn't have to look far. Here's an example right under everyone's nose.
Originally Posted by LinearAq

"In 3 or 4 generations, you're talking about eliminating at least 8 or 12 decendants (or many thousands in the case of insects & plants), and the selection god(ess)' chances are still only 1 in 1000 for each one. (S)he's never going to catch up. Never ever EVAR! It's mathematically impossible." Your own statement refutes this. 8 or 12 were already eliminated so "impossible" while having nice emotional appeal, is not an accurate descriptor.
Look closely. There are 8 - 12 offspring, descended from an ever-so-slightly defective mutant. And Linear just magically claims they're already eliminated!

This could be just an empty, utterly baseless claim generated just to be contrary and waste time. If there is any rationale behind it, it has to be that mutants with defects are assumed to always be eliminated 100% of the time. Could be some genuine, real-deal, you-can-look-it-up cognitive dissonance involved too.

No reason exists for them to be "already eliminated". None! Mutant survived, reproduced, offspring resulted. They weren't statistically detectable in such a short timeframe, so they reproduced and... Linear says they're dead already. Just by a.) his say-so b.) selection magic.

Looks like some part of him can see implications, for sure!

One of the main points I am trying to make here is that evolutionists can't just declare lifeforms selected. Well, not and get away with it. They'll sure try, if you don't watch 'em. Every time. It's not a mutation; it repeats like clockwork.

By definition, a critter with such a small decrease in fitness has, for all practical purposes, the same chances as its fellows. Selection cannot be said to kill it off 100% automatically. Neither can you retroactively try to assume it dead. Or its offspring. No way no how!

Look again. I'll change the format a bit, and bring it in line with convention.
Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
In 3 or 4 generations, you're talking about eliminating at least 8 or 12 decendants (or many thousands in the case of insects & plants), and the selection god(ess)' chances are still only 1 in 1000 for each one. (S)he's never going to catch up. Never ever EVAR! It's mathematically impossible.
Your own statement refutes this. 8 or 12 were already eliminated so "impossible" while having nice emotional appeal, is not an accurate descriptor.
He says my statement refutes this. What part of my statement mitigates against 8 to 12 surviving mutants with defects? Why, the part that says 8 to 12 ever-so-slightly defective mutants existed, of course! Who couldn't see that? If they're born, hatched, sprouted, you name it - evolutionist religion decrees they'll be eliminated 100% of the time, and the only explanation required is to chant 'natural selection' a few times.

All that remains is for LindaLou to get on my case for not understanding this aspect of 'natural selection' in the first place. I can hardly wait.


Got another one, not that it could come as a surprise if it tried.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46502#Post46502

Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by Russ
I previous said:

"The small non-complex mutations that are becoming part of a complex system would certainly be harmful, useless mutations and would be selected out long before they ever had a chance to develop more complexity."

...(snip out propaganda)....

Nevertheless, the truth that small mutations, although nearly always harmful, form components that are beneficial to the organism, is now discredited because of what we now know about the cell.
This is different than the statement above. Small harmful mutations do not remain in the population. Small beneficial mutations do.


Automatic 100% elimination. Omniscient selection goddess. This is the assumption.

Now you've all seen how successfully it's been defended in this thread. If you've forgotten, please recall who condemned this assumption, and claimed it was not commonly seen, while trying to defend it.

From a little later in that last link:
Originally Posted by LinearAq

I will not address the second statement because you seem to be having trouble supporting the first one.

shocked


Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson