Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

<< < (19/20) > >>

metari1 (December 14, 2007, 20:37:00 PM):
1) Would you agree that the defining characteristic of a theory that is at the very least well reasoned is the ability to discern
between the cause and the effect ?
3) Wikipedia tells us that NS is a mechanism.
4) Chris Colby from a www.talkorigins.org article tells us that NS can only ever be an effect.
5) There are a few possibilities when reading an article with the term NS in it
a) Cause or mechanism
b) Only ever an effect.
c) Can be an effect and cause at the same time.
d) One can't tell wether it is a cause or an effect.
e) YEC, Darwinists using NS are language confused because NS is a semantic impossibility just like triangular circles and their inability to understand this is making them mentally ill.
6) Is natural selection a dynamic of populations ?

Please address these points.
metari1 (December 15, 2007, 17:57:31 PM):
1) What is the difference between conscious and unconscious selection ? http://www.springerlink.com/content/t533k010826546k6 says
that automatic selection is the same as CS. But what would Neutral Selection then be? And Manual Selection or how about gear shifted
selection. Lets say you shift gears in what way would you go from manual to automatic selection. Darwin coined the term conscious selection in 1859 - before 1859 in 1857 people were blissfully unaware that there apparently was such a thing as an US. Darwin was
wrong - a selection is a goal directed decision hence it can only ever by conscious. Darwin confused patterns with designs, see
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com for the pattern design distinction.

2) Kenneth Miller on a Youtube video said that Natural Selection is "blind". But why is Natural Selection never "stupid"?

bluegray (December 16, 2007, 09:49:01 AM):
I don't see why you find it difficult to see the cause and effect in evolution. Although it is not always explicitly stated, it's obvious that the theory in simple terms says that change over time in genetic variation (effect) is caused my various mechanisms like natural selection.

If you have a problem with the semantics of the phrase "natural selection" so be it. I don't. I can see that 'selection' may imply a conscience decision, but as defined in the theory, it clearly isn't. The 'decision' in this case is made by natural processes without a specific goal in mind. Hence natural selection.

The terms conscious and unconscious or automatic selection as in the link you provided is different in the sense that these are decisions made by people through their actions of breeding or planting animals or plants. These decisions may be with a specific goal in mind. The variations that are selected by people to plant or breed again is not necessarily the fittest to survive anymore as in natural selection, but are selected for other characteristics that might be beneficial to those people.

Could you please be more specific to which article you referred to at cosmicfingerprints.com. It looks like you have to subscribe to some mailing list.
But at first glance, it looks like the site is full of flawed arguments...

Kenneth Miller on a Youtube video said that Natural Selection is "blind". But why is Natural Selection never "stupid"?
Stupid implies intelligence (or the lack thereof) with some goal in mind.
metari1 (December 16, 2007, 19:36:31 PM):
Could you please be more specific to which article you referred to at cosmicfingerprints.com. It looks like you have to subscribe to some mailing list.
But at first glance, it looks like the site is full of flawed arguments...


http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists_riddle.htm
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution_quick_guide.htm
bluegray (December 17, 2007, 07:19:37 AM):
That is not very specific, but anyway. As I said before. The author of that site either does not understand evolution, or is deceiving his readers. His arguments are just plain wrong.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page