NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 18 2015,19:23) | I have to say that cryptoguru has done an excellent job muddling their adversaries who apparently missed what they actually said, which I will highlight to make what is most important to notice easier to find in the rest of the text. From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y240783
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39) | final point to N. Wells
Natural Selection is about death. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for advantage, whether it's because some are stronger, or shorter, or bluer, or have better ovaries, or avoid nightclubs .. whatever. The selective agent is death. If an organism dies before it can reproduce it will be removed from the gene pool. Things that haven't died yet compete for resources, eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).
The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death. Differential reproduction is a misleading concept, because the preservation of an advantageous trait can only occur when eventually all other competing hereditary lines are extinct. (death). Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that, so all other lines must become extinct to allow the favoured line to become the parent to the next stage. (I obviously think this is crackers ... I'm just explaining that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is very simple)
My point is that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is easy to model, you just set natural conditions and environments for the organisms to live and compete in and see which survive, you shouldn't be measuring the advantages and rewarding them ... nature does not do that, it just provides conditions for death, those who survive it are considered "selected".
I don't see what all the fuss is about ... just trying to demystify the Natural Selection deity.
Bye for now |
|
And I've bolded and italicized the part where he goes completely wrong. He may be slightly better at English than you are, but he's every bit as big a loon. I've underline the next bit where he goes completely wrong. We do, in fact, see exactly that. It's obscured in the present because we do not yet have the next stages with respect to which everything now alive is an 'intermediate'. And within any species (an artificial distinction, entirely conceptual) we see a wide variety of traits -- cats, cows, rats, rutabagas, none are cookie-cutter identical to all other members of the species. His conception is that a 'species' is a set of identical clones, which is ludicrous. And yes, some might go extinct, something new may arise. But it is all part of one life, endlessly proliferating and changing over time, with death, the horrifying "natural selection", removing those variations less suited to the current state of the, gasp, ever-changing, environment.
|