The Myth of Natural Selection

[supersport]

Hey all....it's nice to find this forum. I hope I'm not being too offensive by suggesting that Neo-darwinism is little more than a brilliant hoax. I would like to present my case here and see what others think.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense. Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex from a series of conservative or degenerative mechanisms. Mutations are shown to be conservative, in that they almost always lose information. Likewise, natural selection is also a conservative -- if not degenerative -- wishful-thinking, after-the-fact phenomenon. Actually, to me, NS is just a tautology that tries to explain the origin of life via "appearance through disappearance." This makes no sense. For example, there are millions of cars on the road -- many of which which break down and die...never to get on the road again. But does this explain the origin of cars? I say no. Common sense says no. Physical reality say no....but evolutionists say yes....and they have convinced millions into believing the same thing. I don't buy it, though.

 

But that's not all. Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck.

 

Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?

 

And it’s not just birds and fish…..squirrels, rabbits, worms, deer, crickets, ants, sparrows, snakes, Etc…..they’re all basically the same! In otherwords, populations of animals are made up of individuals that are strikingly similar. Thus, common sense says that being “tough” or “fast” or “smart” has nothing what-so-ever to do with who goes on to reproduce -- because they're all more or less the same. In fact, what seems to be more important is being LUCKY. For example let’s look at frogs. If a frog happens to make a home in a stream or river that is not currently inhabited by snakes, then he is more likely to go on to breed because he’s less likely to be eaten. And it’s like that everywhere. If a seal frequents a particular area that happens to be a place where sharks don’t roam then he’s also more likely to breed. Ultimately, it's all about luck.

 

And luck can work its magic in a million ways. I mean isn’t it just basically the luck of the draw if a worm happens to be plucked out of the ground by a bird? And Isn’t it just a matter of luck when an owl spots a field mouse and nabs him? And isn’t it a matter of just luck if a particular fish gets plucked out of the water by a pelican? And isn’t it just a matter of luck if a bear swipes a salmon out of the river? And isn’t it just a matter of luck if a fly lands in a Venus flytrap? And isn't it just a matter of luck if a locust gets snatched out of the air by a bird? And isn’t it just a matter of luck if an animal finds himself in an area that gets no rain….thus causing him to die of thirst?

 

Ultimately – in the real world – being “FIT” has nothing to do with it. And that's because most animals in a given population have the same basic "fitness." In the real world, it usually boils down to dumb luck because almost all animals in a given population are the exact same. Luck, infact, could insure that only the unfit/stupid/weak/clumsy/ugly/sick/deformed could survive. And this says nothing to the fact that traits are not tied to randomly occuring genetic mutations -- or that indiviudual nucleotides never break apart.

 

Ironically, my evolutionist friends have the gall to call these lucky events non-random!

 

Personally, I believe that natural selection is only a non-random phenomenon on the level of the population -- not on the level of the individual. For instance, if a population of animals experiences an enviornmental shift, NS may, in fact, wipe out most -- or all -- of a given population. This in effect would leave only other types of creatures who are able to withstand such a change. For example, in my garden I have 2 types of flowers.....If we have an unsusally hot, sunny summer, the green-leafed begonias are likely to wilt and die....where my lantanas are likely to thrive. It's a population phenomenon. --not an individual phenomenon.

 

And speaking of selection……think about sexual selection for minute.

 

How exactly is it that evolutionists’ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males? Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?

 

Butterflies,turtles,squirrels,birds,fish,ants,bats ,crickets,mice,rabbits…..you really think that there’s much “sexual selection” going on here? You really think the males/females of these populations honestly care who they breed with? I don’t. I think almost all the members of these populations will breed because breeding in an inherent drive in every population.

 

And even animals like deer who like to quarrel over mates.....are you telling me that only the strongest of the deer will ever breed? The fact is these mating games that the males play are generally just rituals. Rarely does an animal actually die as a result of a struggle for a mate. In fact, the loser will almost certainly go on to breed with some other female….and thus have offspring regardless. There are plenty of females to go around.

[Mercedes Benzene]

You present some really good points in this thread, but I must say that some of your statements can definitely be refuted. :hihi:

 

Ultimately – in the real world – being “FIT” has nothing to do with it. And that's because most animals in a given population have the same basic "fitness."

Being "fit" has a lot to do with "it", and most animals in a given population may have the same "fitness", but it is those that are super-fit that put evolution into play. Since being the fittest means having superior genes, over time, those genes are going going to be expressed more and more frequently. Eventually, those "fit" genes will be prevalent, ensuring the success (and survival) of a particular group of a species.

 

How exactly is it that evolutionists’ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males? Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?

No. I don't believe anyone is saying that "only the absolute fittest will breed", but as I mentioned above, being fit is based on genes. This leaves pure genetics to carry out natural selection... and this is something that is assured.

In fact, its extremely hard to critisize natural selection, because science has proven it! You can take any group of animals, identify a distinguishing gene set, and watch how that particular group of animals survives. Indeed, those who have the favorable genes... survive.

 

I look forward to seeing more of what you have to say though. :hihi:

[supersport]

You present some really good points in this thread, but I must say that some of your statements can definitely be refuted. :hihi:

 

Being "fit" has a lot to do with "it", and most animals in a given population may have the same "fitness", but it is those that are super-fit that put evolution into play. Since being the fittest means having superior genes, over time, those genes are going going to be expressed more and more frequently. Eventually, those "fit" genes will be prevalent, ensuring the success (and survival) of a particular group of a species.

 

Well I have no doubt that the "fittest" -- if there is such a thing within a population will go on to breed. My contention is, though that nearly all creatures within a population will breed. And there's such a fine line between fit/non-fit that I don't see how any discernable difference can be made. I mean if you were to look at a school of tuna fish, could you pick out the most "fit"? The fact is, all tuna are more or less the exact same.

 

No. I don't believe anyone is saying that "only the absolute fittest will breed", but as I mentioned above, being fit is based on genes. This leaves pure genetics to carry out natural selection... and this is something that is assured.

In fact, its extremely hard to critisize natural selection, because science has proven it! You can take any group of animals, identify a distinguishing gene set, and watch how that particular group of animals survives. Indeed, those who have the favorable genes... survive.

 

I look forward to seeing more of what you have to say though. :hihi:

 

Well, I've bolded the part that I have a problem with. I don't believe that genes spell the difference between fit and non-fit. I don't have time to get into it now, but let me ask you......how is it that you believe that Darwin's/Grant's finches evolved their new beaks? Also, how is it that you believe that peppered moths evolved different colors to match their backgrounds? Random mutations + selection? Selection only? Adaptive Radiation? Which mechanism and why...? These are the classical cases of so-called "proof" of evolution in action. Take care. S

[Mercedes Benzene]

I mean if you were to look at a school of tuna fish, could you pick out the most "fit"? The fact is, all tuna are more or less the exact same.

 

That's true, you can't tell just by casually viewing a group of specimins...

You'd have to witness them being subjected to some sort of non-normal event.

 

Which mechanism and why...?

Well... Genetics my friend. Genetics. :hihi: It's as simple as that (for most cases). I'll use a simple example to explain.

1000 cockroaches inhabit a local restaurant. The owner, obviously displeased hires an exterminator.

The exterminator comes in, and sprays pesticide in order to kill off the roaches. 99.8 percent of the roaches die. Why do the other 2 survive? They have genes that give them resistance to the pesticide. In a day, the owner notices 100 cockroaches. She's pissed off, but calls the exterminator again. He comes, sprays. 50 cockroaches survive. The process repeats over the next couple of days. Each time, more cockroaches survive.

 

That was a little exaggerated and circumlocutory, but it demonstrates natural selection.

I'll try to find a link to some more "scientific" examples.:hihi:

[Pyrotex]

...I hope I'm not being too offensive by suggesting that Neo-darwinism is little more than a brilliant hoax.

Not *too* offensive, hunh? So, you intend to be offensive, but NOT so offensive that we will ignore you?

 

Whether or not you are offensive has a lot to do with who you actually are and what your agenda is. If you are, say, a curious but under-educated kid who is just parroting what he heard from his daddy, then we won't take offense.

 

Hoax? You have been misled or lied to. There cannot be a hoax, because ALL the evidence, ALL the logic, ALL the questions, ALL the researchers and ALL their conclusions, misgiving, agreements and disagreements are in the public record. If you cannot find the time to read any of it, that is your problem.

 

The theory of evolution crashes under the reality of simple common sense.

This is your second false statement. If evolution were to have failed as a plausible and rational explanation for the biological life on Earth, it would have failed during Darwin's lifetime, when evidence was sparse. It didn't fail. And since then, the evidence for it has only multiplied exponentially. You don't read much, do you?

Common sense says that life cannot go from the simple to the complex from a series of conservative or degenerative mechanisms. Mutations are shown to be conservative, in that they almost always lose information.

So what? That is not the claim of evolutionary theory. You have mistated and misrepresented the claims of evolution. You have also made the grievous mistake of believing that "common sense" should be the ultimate arbiter between truth and falsehood. It is not. Common sense tells you not to walk into traffic and not to pet large animals that are growling at you. That is about the LIMIT of common sense. Trusting in common sense will NOT explain gravity, rocket engines, the atom, electro-magnetic radiation, hurricanes, or why the sky is blue. If it can't do ANY of these things (and many more), why do you think it will explain evolution?

Likewise, natural selection is ...an after-the-fact phenomenon. ...NS is just a tautology that tries to explain the origin of life via "appearance through disappearance." This makes no sense.

Wrong again. You're batting 1000. Natural selection has never been tauted as explaining the origin of life in any way. You have been misled or lied to again if you fail to see that natural selection is just the description that Darwin used for what obviously occurs in the natural world. Lions catch gazelles, often the slower ones, because... [PAY ATTENTION NOW, THIS IS THE TRICKY PART] ...because they are slower than many of the other gazelles.

 

Your phrase "appearance through disappearance" was invented by a preacher, not by scientists trying to explain evolution. So if it IS stupid (and I agree with you it is), then doesn't that reflect on the stupidity of the preacher/

For example, there are millions of cars on the road...but evolutionists say yes....and they have convinced millions into believing the same thing.

No. Evolutionary theorists do NOT and have NEVER claimed this. You (or someone who lied to you) are putting words in their mouths which they never spoke. This is a malicious thing to do. Nor have they convinced ANYONE of that claptrap. Don't spread lies. God will send you to Hell for that.

...Somehow, evolutionists have tricked people into believing that natural selection is a pure non-random mechanism. Very occasionally this might this may be true. But common says that whichever animal within a population lives long enough to be able to breed is a mostly a matter of luck.

Tricked? How? If you're going to claim trickery, then explain how this is a "trick", like bending spoons with mental mind energy, or making a tiger disappear from a stage. Your use of the word "somehow" points to the conclusion that you haven't a clue how this trick could be done.

 

But all that aside, you are wrong again. What is a RANDOM death in an animal population? A gazelle dies of disease. Random? Not entirely--the gazelles who were not as susceptible were more likely to live. A gazelle is ambushed by a lion. Random? Not entirely--gazelles who stuck closer to the herd probably lived longer. Truly RANDOM would necessarily mean that every gazelle who died, did so for no apparent reason, and with no correlation to age, health, genetic predisposition or physical strength.

 

Let's try this from another tack. Let's assume that 90% of all gazelle deaths are RANDOM using MY (valid) definition, not yours. Simple math models show that genetic pressure from the 10% of gazelles who died by "natural selection" is more than enough to measurably alter the gene pool of the gazelles over a few dozen generations.

Have you ever seen a large school of fish or a flock of seagulls? They all look and act the exact same! Darwinists insist that there's slight differences, but who could really tell one apart from the other?...

I'll tell you who. A biologist specializing in aquatic birds. With a good pair of field binoculars and lots of patience. But YOU obviously don't understand that, or you wouldn't have asked such a simple-minded question.

 

Sorry, but I have read enough. Most of your arguments are based entirely on falsehoods about what evolutionary scientists are supposed to have said or done. The Bible speaks of this as "Bearing False Witness"--and goes on to suggest that God finds it very offensive.

 

Totally fallacious reasoning. You DO know what the word "fallacious" means, don't you????

[IDMclean]

Two things that I will point out, first is that "fitness" is relative to enviromental conciderations. Put me in a 120 degree F enviro and I will die, put a lizard or a snake into that same enviro and it will survive. For that enviroment that specific creature type is acclimated to those conditions and is fit within that enviroment.

 

Second common sense is:

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

 

More on common sense here: Wikipedia

 

Evolution is the result of statistic probablility over generations. When something mutates that is adaptive to the native enviroment of the species in question it gives it a slight statistic edge, a greater probability of passing it's genes along. This chance is small but significant. Over generations (centenial or more) these mutations can lead to the development of new organisms.

 

This can be viewed independently of Evolution. The same priniciples that underlie evolution underlie software development, car safety testing, general progression methods, Economic theory. Much more than that I am sure but those are just a few things for now.

 

How exactly is it that evolutionists’ sexual selection hypothesis could be correct when there are just as many females in the animal kingdom as males?

 

Not true. male to female ratio is relative to the species you pick and the social customs of those species. Take ants or bees, as they exemplify the point. they are predominantly one sex, Female I believe. Plants are another example, where a significant portion of the organisms are hermaphroditic. For humans even the ratio is dependent on a number of factors and is not a straight split, though we are an oddity of the biological world with a nearly 50/50 split, with ever so slight lean towards women world wide.

 

Besides that, are you telling me that only the absolute fittest will breed?

 

this is a rather extreame statement. Evolution only implies that there is a higher probability of a "fit" specimen breeding than an "unfit". it is not a White and Black, yes or no. There are few "onlys" in the world.

 

I think almost all the members of these populations will breed because breeding in an inherent drive in every population.

 

The best part about this, is it is a I think statement. I would like to point you to an possible flaw in your wording and therefore your thinking. I would like to ask you to define further what you mean by inherent drive? Where would this drive originate? How do you measure it? What is it's cause, and can it be suppressed or toggled, if so how?

 

I know the idea of inherent attributes is often convenient, but it is impercise and unwholistic, which by itself is not so bad, but in a wholistic arguement like yours it becomes a gaping hole.

 

I look forward to you responce.

[supersport]

Two things that I will point out, first is that "fitness" is relative to enviromental conciderations. Put me in a 120 degree F enviro and I will die, put a lizard or a snake into that same enviro and it will survive. For that enviroment that specific creature type is acclimated to those conditions and is fit within that enviroment.

 

and that's exactly what I stated in my OP...that NS works on populations -- not on individuals.

 

 

Evolution is the result of statistic probablility over generations. When something mutates that is adaptive to the native enviroment of the species in question it gives it a slight statistic edge, a greater probability of passing it's genes along. This chance is small but significant. Over generations (centenial or more) these mutations can lead to the development of new organisms.

 

What if I could prove to you that being more "fit" was not tied to mutations?

 

 

 

Not true. male to female ratio is relative to the species you pick and the social customs of those species. Take ants or bees, as they exemplify the point. they are predominantly one sex, Female I believe. Plants are another example, where a significant portion of the organisms are hermaphroditic. For humans even the ratio is dependent on a number of factors and is not a straight split, though we are an oddity of the biological world with a nearly 50/50 split, with ever so slight lean towards women world wide

 

lol.....well obviously there aren't as many females needed in these populations. But let's get real...in the majority of animal populations the male/female ratio is just about 50/50. Evolutionists notion that only the top percentage of animals will breed is silly.

 

 

 

this is a rather extreame statement. Evolution only implies that there is a higher probability of a "fit" specimen breeding than an "unfit". it is not a White and Black, yes or no. There are few "onlys" in the world,

 

 

 

The best part about this, is it is a I think statement. I would like to point you to an possible flaw in your wording and therefore your thinking. I would like to ask you to define further what you mean by inherent drive? Where would this drive originate? How do you measure it? What is it's cause, and can it be suppressed or toggled, if so how?.

 

Does it matter where it originates? Do you disagree with the notion that every individual animal proabably has an built-in desire to breed? This is just common sense. Have you ever noticed how when a dog goes in heat, all the male dogs in the neighborhood seem to come around? This is no accident.

 

I know the idea of inherent attributes is often convenient, but it is impercise and unwholistic, which by itself is not so bad, but in a wholistic arguement like yours it becomes a gaping hole.

 

I look forward to you responce.

 

I actually think it's the other way around....I think my reasoning about natural selection creates a gaping hole in evolutionary theory.

[supersport]

Well I see no one really answered my question about moths or finches...so I'll just carry on....

 

See, what I believe is that animals don't have to count on a random mutation -- nor do they have to go through the process of death in order to evolve new traits. In the case of the moth, moths have the ability to emerge with distinct wing-patterns based on background shades and colors.

 

What does this mean? It means, instead of evolutionists' version of evolution happening via natural selection, that peppered moths evolved just like these did: (please see the bottom picture.)

 

(oops..cannot post links yet....go to yahoo and type in the following: seasonal polymorphism moths -- the site you are looking for should be the first one in the list and the site is called "ourfcsfriendscentral.org)

 

See, what evolutionists want us to believe is that change in animals happens over thousands/millions of years. But do you want to know the truth? It happens instantly. It happens during development. Animals are shaped and molded from the moment of conception -- and the process will continue throughout their lifetimes.

 

It's the little secret that evolutionists don't want you to know.

 

And it's the same with finches. Evolutionists claim that finch beaks evolved via natural selection. But guess what....finches have a gene called Bmp4 that gets activated during development. What does this gene do? It stimulates beak GROWTH. This mutation is not an accident. If you know anything about Grant's finches, you know that after the environment changed, all the new finches emerged with the correct beak size to match up with their new enviornment. This process was not due to death, but due to life.

 

God did not create this earth so that animals have to die in order to change. He created this earth so animals could change -- so they don't have to die! This change is called phenotypic plasticity -- otherwise known as individual adaptivity. This is a result of inner intelligence that deciphers external conditions. It happens pre-development and it happens post development. And see....evolutionists choose not to TEST this because it would destroy their whole theory. Thus -- they don't. And this keeps the charade alive. Phenotypic plastcity is a phenomenon that happens all across the globe -- yet the evolutionist still stick to their story that these finches must have evolved through death.

 

But animals don't have to die to change or adapt to their enviornment. This is the Neo-darwin achilles heal. (ever notice that darwinists NEVER test animals to see how they react to a change in environment?....you think this is an accident?)

 

Moths -- and every other animal has similar abilities (to emerge with specific traits, pre-adapted according to external conditions.) Life is indeed a miracle.

 

This puts the big hurt on evolutionists. Life doesn't evolve randomly and slowly over millions of years -- but instantly and with purpose after conception. They've got it all backwards.

 

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

 

In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Anthropologist, Tom Kemp

[Tormod]

But let's get real...in the majority of animal populations the male/female ratio is just about 50/50. Evolutionists notion that only the top percentage of animals will breed is silly.

 

While I dislike your childish and arrogant tone, it does not relieve you from the burden of proof. Please cite your sources so we can check them out. Which evolutionists claim that the top percentage of animals will breed?

 

But animals don't have to die to change or adapt to their enviornment. This is the Neo-darwin achilles heal. (ever notice that darwinists NEVER test animals to see how they react to a change in environment?....you think this is an accident?)

 

Which darwinists never test animals?

[Tormod]

This puts the big hurt on evolutionists. Life doesn't evolve randomly and slowly over millions of years -- but instantly and with purpose after conception. They've got it all backwards.

...

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

 

"They" being...?

 

You could learn from reading on of the *many* other threads on this topic. We've had all this posted over and over and, like you, usually in an authorative and obnoxious tone yet with complete lack of evidence.

 

If you want to avoid a flame war I recommend posting that evidence ASAP.

[Boerseun]

See, what I believe is that animals don't have to count on a random mutation -- nor do they have to go through the process of death in order to evolve new traits. In the case of the moth, moths have the ability to emerge with distinct wing-patterns based on background shades and colors.

Now why would that be? Maybe because it makes them more difficult to see? Which makes those who don't 'blend' into the background slightly easier to see, which makes the little birdies and other moth-eaters eat them preferentially. Which uses death as the filtering agent for the procreation of selected genetic traits. You have been lied to. Have you been to a Kent Hovint lecture?

What does this mean? It means, instead of evolutionists' version of evolution happening via natural selection, that peppered moths evolved just like these did: (please see the bottom picture.)

No, it doesn't. It means exactly what I explained above. You have been lied to.

See, what evolutionists want us to believe is that change in animals happens over thousands/millions of years. But do you want to know the truth? It happens instantly. It happens during development. Animals are shaped and molded from the moment of conception -- and the process will continue throughout their lifetimes.

Exactly. The study of human embrios throughout gestation nicely illustrates our genetic heritage. Matter of fact - in the first week or two, you cannot discern between the embrios of cows, humans, apes, dogs, cats, whales, dolphins, etc. In the first week or so, we humans suffer the indignity of having gills and fins. We even have tails, with no-one to wag it to. And then we lose it - we go through all the stages of evolutionary development in a matter of a few days. It clearly illustrate where we come from, and our common roots with other animals when comparisons are done between embryos.

It's the little secret that evolutionists don't want you to know.

Ooooooooooooohhhhh.... conspiratorius magnificus! You have been lied to.

And it's the same with finches. Evolutionists claim that finch beaks evolved via natural selection. But guess what....finches have a gene called Bmp4 that gets activated during development. What does this gene do? It stimulates beak GROWTH. This mutation is not an accident. If you know anything about Grant's finches, you know that after the environment changed, all the new finches emerged with the correct beak size to match up with their new enviornment. This process was not due to death, but due to life.

And how do you think the finches ended up with those preferential beak designs? Because those that didn't "by accident" get the right beak shapes couldn't get to the food and starved. End of story. It's mighty difficult to procreate, to get your genes to the next generation, if you're dead. Read our posts again, and study them closely. You have been lied to.

God did not create this earth so that animals have to die in order to change. He created this earth so animals could change -- so they don't have to die!

God did not create this world. Period. You have been preached to. Be careful in preaching at Hypo, or in even using your particular brand of delusion as supporting evidence for whatever views you might hold. That is not science.

This change is called phenotypic plasticity -- otherwise known as individual adaptivity. This is a result of inner intelligence that deciphers external conditions. It happens pre-development and it happens post development. And see....evolutionists choose not to TEST this because it would destroy their whole theory. Thus -- they don't. And this keeps the charade alive. Phenotypic plastcity is a phenomenon that happens all across the globe -- yet the evolutionist still stick to their story that these finches must have evolved through death.

Sources? Evidence? Support? You have been lied to. See my replies above on how simple evolution really is. A human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe. Don't waste yours with this kind of claptrap.

But animals don't have to die to change or adapt to their enviornment. This is the Neo-darwin achilles heal. (ever notice that darwinists NEVER test animals to see how they react to a change in environment?....you think this is an accident?)

Are you smoking your socks, dude? Animals can change to their environments in a single generation on an individual level as far as behaviour is concerned. Dogs will come running when you hit a bell when they get food. Eventually they will start salivating when they hear the bell. This is learned behaviour, and have to be relearned in every generation. It is not genetically bequethed to the offspring. Any accidental mutation that is beneficial will be handed down to the kids because that happens at the genetica level. Are you with me, still? Detrimental mutations that might hamstring the individual in procreating will obviously not be handed down either, because the individual will croak before he could procreate, or he/she would have less offspring. You have been lied to.

Moths -- and every other animal has similar abilities (to emerge with specific traits, pre-adapted according to external conditions.) Life is indeed a miracle.

This puts the big hurt on evolutionists. Life doesn't evolve randomly and slowly over millions of years -- but instantly and with purpose after conception. They've got it all backwards.

Big words, my man. Care to back them up? You're making unfounded statements here. You have been lied to.

And this is why no intermediate fossils have been found -- because there aren't any.

Oh - this is rich. You have been lied to.

In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Anthropologist, Tom Kemp

You don't understand much of the fossil record, or of biology or geology, do you? Go to the nearest library and read up some. And then go home and play frisbee with your Kent Hovint DVD's - that's all they're good for. You have been lied to.

[ronthepon]

Try reading this.

 

http://www.geocities.com/hartwig_dellmour/Tetradactylus_1985.html

[supersport]

While I dislike your childish and arrogant tone, it does not relieve you from the burden of proof. Please cite your sources so we can check them out. Which evolutionists claim that the top percentage of animals will breed?

 

Which darwinists never test animals?

 

Arrogant? Childish? How is that?

 

How about you show me proof since it's your theory that's considered FACT. I've just dismantled both of your so-called "proofs" of natural selection. (I noticed you said nothing about finches or moths in your replys.)

 

Now...what I want you to do is point me to a controlled experiment that shows how natural selection can actually work.

 

What I also want you to do, since you don't believe me, is point me to a controlled experiment where they test animals in different environments to see what happens to their phenotype. Like this:

 

Maybe dogs: Take a group of dogs to the arctic...and take a group of the same types of dogs to the Outback in Austrailia. Then do a controlled experiment and disallow the dogs to interbreed with others in area, and see what happens....not only to the original dogs -- but also to their offspring. Do they get a thicker coat? Do they lose their hair? Does their coat change colors? What happens to their bodies? Do they get shorter, fatter, taller, skinnier?

 

You know what I think? I think evolutionist scientist are CHICKEN of what the results might be -- and how fast they might happen. This is why there are NO tests like this to be found...because it would disprove their notion of gradualism and accidental evolution. Prove me wrong.

[supersport]

Boerseun, I see you have a long way to fall...and alot to learn. Lucky for you I'm here to teach you. You need to do some research on phenotypic plasticity.

----------------------

 

Evolutionists have it all wrong. Life is miraculous, scientifically unexplainable and utterly mind-blowing. The following is an example that you will never read in evolutionists' books because these authors must avoid the miraculous events of nature in order to sound credible.

 

(can't post the link yet.)....

 

1) in the presence of a predator, frog/tadpole eggs can hatch at later times:

 

 

..... Flatworms (Phagocotus gracilis) were used as

predators or predator chemical cues upon salamander larvae (Ambystoma texanum and Ambystoma barbouri). The presence of the flatworms and their cues induced the eggs to delay their hatching time. This resulted in larger, and more advanced hatchlings. This finding supports the earlier field observations that the flatworm preyed heavily on smaller, less developed hatchlings. This shift in hatch time is adaptive and supports

greater hatchling survival (Sih and Moore 1993).

 

Any evolutionists care to explain this phenomenon? This is just incredible if you think about it.

 

2) specific morphological changes happens due to predators:

 

In 1997 McCollum and Leimberger examined the morphological changes that

arose in the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in response to the presence of a predatory dragonfly (Aesha umbrosa). The larvae that were reared in the presence of the predator differed in shape and in color than those that were reared in predator free environments. The treatments exposed tadpoles to tail damage and to chemical cues of the dragonfly feeding on conspecifics. The tadpoles responded plastically by altering their color and tail shape. The tail was extended, presumably increasing swimming speed and hence

survivorship. The color change was seen in the tail. The appearance of color on the tail is thought to attract predatory attacks on the tail rather than on the body.

 

3) specific behavior changes as a result of predators

 

Larval anurans have demonstrated phenotypic plasticity in response to variation in food availability (Anholt 1998). It has been argued that food availability and predation risk are intertwined. This can be demonstrated when food resources in an environment are high, search time by prey is reduced and predation success may suffer. During times of limited

food availability search time may be lengthened, thus increasing prey vulnerability to predation (Anholt and Werner 1998). In the presence of predators, search time is reduced as activity is restricted to avoid predation. This leads to a reduction of food intake or starvation in environments with low food availability

 

4) Diet induces developmental changes in physical characteristics.

 

Depending on their diet, individuals (tadpoles) of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

 

(can't post link yet.)

-----------------

 

Thus if plasticity can instantly effect the hatch time of eggs, the size, shape, color, and physical/behavior characteristics of an animal, then about the only place I see a role for RM + NS is in the mind of an evolutionist.

__________________

[supersport]

http://www.fiu.edu/~donnelly/termpaperex1.pdf#search='plasticity%20body%20struc ture'

 

 

http://www.citeulike.org/user/balicea/article/454684

[ughaibu]

How are the examples in post 14 considered to conflict with the theory of evolution?

[ughaibu]

Speciation has been directly documented: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html