|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? I am predicting no such thing. To do so would be silly. It would be self-defeating. Your trap is wasted on me. Then what are you saying? Try being less cryptic. I wasn't saying anything more than I've already said. You posted some nonsense and asked me to stumble into taking credit for it. I declined. What's cryptic about that? I said it is an error to assume "Natural Selection". What's cryptic about that? Want to know what CTD has said? You can start your homework project with these. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1655http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44690#Post44690This is also relevant: http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47156#Post47156Linear's trying to profit from the fact that "natural selection", as an element of evolutionism, is too unscientific a concept for anyone to bother writing down in the form of a testable hypothesis. That it should be testable is implied. It's not hard to think up tests, in fact. The very thing we're discussing works just fine. They tested it, and it failed. The spin is that since it cannot fail, the test itself is a failure. Even the arch evopusher T.H. Huxley argued against Darwin and said it needed to be tested, rather than accepted as an assumption. Yet all we seem to get is tests of tests themselves in order to test for the feasibility of perhaps being able to devise a test which could test it under circumstances which will guarantee success (of NS, not the test itself; because that would be impossible). I pretty much understand all versions of the selection goddess. I also understand that you and most evolutionists feel compelled to switch versions quite frequently. I asked you what version you were arguing against. Does this mean you are arguing against any form of natural selection at all? Does this mean you support them all? Do you claim to understand them all? Does being an evolutionist help win favours with a fickle goddess? What favours does she grant? Maybe killing rivals? Death is all she has to offer, after all. One minute she's omniscient, eliminating any "defect" no matter how minute, no matter that it's an unexpressed recessive trait. Next time you turn around, she's on vacation, allowing all sorts of things to pile up. She can choose a single gene in a single fly out of all the flies in the world, and preserve it. Yet she "only sees populations" every other Tuesday. Perhaps the real explanation is a bit more complex than you think and the appearance of conflict is a characteristic of that complexity. Sorry if it is difficult for you to understand, but reality is often that way. [/quote]When you assert that appearances are only illusions, the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate the illusion. Until illusion is demonstrated, observation stands firm.
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
|
|
|
|
|
