Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

<< < (16/20) > >>

bluegray (December 10, 2007, 09:30:34 AM):
What, pray tell was the original Darwinism. Define it for me, spell it out exactly and then tell me who says so.

Summary of Darwin's theory
A tautology is defined as something which is true by definition and something which is true by definition can't be falsified.
Which is why the passage below by Darwin isn't Godless. Darwin's theory of evolution isnt' Godless because it isn't a theory but a
tautology and something which is true by definition can't be Godless. Natural Selection also isn't Godless because it like triangular circles is a semantic impossibility - there is no such thing. And something which doesn't exist by definition can't thus be Godless. If only my fellow brainwashed YEC would somehow get to grips with this.

No it's not a tautology (see link below and summary above). And please explain why something 'which is true by definition can't be Godless'.
Darwin
"..This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner...."

Notice what he says - "...varied more or less in any favourable direction..." And thus no matter what happens we will always be told after the event the exact same story, which makes it unfalsifiable. No test can be devised to prove it wrong.

Some would disagree...
Evolution is unfalsifiable
Mefiante (December 10, 2007, 10:12:47 AM):
Darwin never used the term "random mutations" and didn't know about genes. RM only surfaced in 1910 in the journals. Which individual established what you just posted and where was it published - what is your theory and where did you get it because it wasn't Uncle Darwin. Where did for example get term random genetic mutations and how do you know it is random or is it just an assumption given your apriori commitment to materialism?

What, pray tell was the original Darwinism. Define it for me, spell it out exactly and then tell me who says so.

I didn't say Darwinism is a tautology, I asked you to define for me what is Darwinism and who says so.



I am not talking about the Neo-Darwinian theory of 1930 about, I talking about Uncle Darwin's theory, I want to know what was his theory and you are incapable of telling me in your own words because Darwin never gave any theory, he just used the word theory.



This is fraud, the kid is being indoctrinated by the misuse of the word evolution. Strangely Behe, Morris, Ham Ruse and Dembski seems to be in on the scam - they never define what they mean by evolution, nobody does.
You creationists do not read, apparently. Not even that which is placed directly in front of you, metari1. So let me try to put it in language that you might actually understand and react to:

Wakey-wakey! Clicky-clicky! Right here!



A tautology is defined as something which is true by definition and something which is true by definition can't be falsified.
Close enough.

Which is why the passage below by Darwin isn't Godless. Darwin's theory of evolution isnt' Godless because it isn't a theory but a
tautology and something which is true by definition can't be Godless. Natural Selection also isn't Godless because it like triangular circles is a semantic impossibility - there is no such thing.
Rubbish. You’re sounding like a stuck record. Read through this thread. Then read a science book.

And something which doesn't exist by definition can't thus be Godless. If only my fellow brainwashed YEC would somehow get to grips with this.
If we are to accept this statement at face value, your god excludes his/her own existence by existing. Nice.

Notice what he says - "...varied more or less in any favourable direction..." And thus no matter what happens we will always be told after the event the exact same story, which makes it unfalsifiable. No test can be devised to prove it wrong.
That’s because you creationists don’t comprehend what you read. Darwin’s statement is the evolutionary analogue of saying about gravity that it is universally present without specifying anything (magnitude, gradient, direction) of the gravitational field.



Let rephrase this with what Darwin intended with the word evolution: Species transition: "..Species transition is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next...."

Notice the fraud, there certainly are changes in the inherited traits, but from this it doesn't follow logically that we had a cow, whale transition or ape - human species transition.
No. The fraud is all yours. There’s a word – “cumulative” – conspicuously absent from your rephrase.

'Luthon64
Mefiante (December 10, 2007, 10:57:32 AM):
Quote from: Craig Venter, at Edge:A DNA-DRIVEN WORLD
We and others have been working for the past several years on the ability to go from reading the genetic code to learning how to write it. It is now possible to design in the computer and then chemically make in the laboratory, very large DNA molecules. A few months ago we published a scientific study in the journal Science where we described the ability to take a chromosome from one bacterium and place it into a second bacterial cell. The result was astonishing - the new DNA that we added changed the species completely from the original one into the species defined by the added DNA. You could describe this as the ultimate in identity theft.

Again, maybe this sounds like science fiction, but I think it is actually a key mechanism of evolution, that could be largely responsible for the wide range of diversity that we see. Instead of evolution happening only due to random mutations that survived selective pressure, we can see how by adding chromosomes to or exchanged between species, that thousands of changes could happen in an instant.

Now they can happen not just by random chance but by deliberate human design and selection. Human thought and design and specific selection is now replacing Darwinian evolution.


Link. Now, how does man’s ability to create artificial life forms from long DNA strands that were themselves manufactured in the laboratory not show the power and value of evolutionary theory? Equally important, how does it still require your creator-god to account for the huge diversity of life that we observe?

'Luthon64
metari1 (December 10, 2007, 18:02:56 PM):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
"..Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous..."

But this is exactly what Uncle Darwin claimed, saying that there can hardly be a doubt about it. Gould differs from Uncle Darwin but
he uses the word "evolution" - his intent differs from Darwin's intent with the word.

Uncle Darwin:
"....This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner. That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt...."
metari1 (December 10, 2007, 22:44:43 PM):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Defining_evolution

"...In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity...."

This differs from the Sapolsky version:
"..Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p. 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong, you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern Europeans with a taste for schnitzel and goose-stepping..."

Thus the word "evolution" is undefined and it is no wonder that there is no Theory of Evolution. And if there is a theory then tell me who says so and how was it established and why didn't this person get a Nobel prize for his Theory of Evolution then?
Where did this person provide ways of disproving his theory.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page