Re: Science Disproves Evolution

On Mar 18, 12:39 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:59 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:02 pm, "backspace" <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 11, 12:50 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <1173568345.923661.67...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> writes>On Mar 6, 9:45 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
As he made no reference to the "feeble mind of man", this is pretty
well irrelevant.

Quote from OriginOS:
"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by
artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to
the
beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings,
one
with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may
have
been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of
selection, that is by the survival of the fittest."

...err oops made a slight mistake there.

No, you made a fundamental error.


It was about a month ago
since I read the paragraph
and I made the connection that by "feeble man" Darwin obviously meant
the "the feeble mind or intellect of man". Clarifying what Darwin
meant, my previous post thus stands. In what way did Darwin establish
that mans mind was 'feeble', because in the context
of the paragraph what else could be 'feeble' then mans mind.


How about man's capacity to control nature? This is the obvious
meaning in the context in which it is presented.

Or do you think that man's power to control nature is not feeble?

As a historical observation the reason that nobody around here dares
use the phrase
"survival of the fittest" is because as the Internet broke down the
censor barriers Creationists were finally able to show the world how
ridiculous it
is to use this phrase, it is circular, defining one term in terms of
another, explaining
everything and thus nothing. Had it not been for the Internet Dr.
Wilkins would still
be happily telling his students those that survive are the fittest and
those that are
the fittest are those survive and thus what survives, survives, what
flies , flies and
what moos, moos.


What absolute and utter bollocks! The reason why the phrase tends not
to be used by evolutionary biologists is that it does not represent
evolutionary theory particularly well.

Dr. Wilkins would'nt dream of stating "survival of the fittest" on
this forum and wisely so.

Well, as it is a term invented by an economist which does not
represent an accurate model of evolutionary theory why on earth should
he?

The evolutionists are basically just hoping and praying that nobody
points this out.

Pointing what out? That "survival of the fittest" is a term invented
by an economist which does not represent an accurate model of
evolutionary theory?

Evolutionary scientists keep pointing this out.


This alone should torpedo Origin of Species.

So the "Origin of Species" should be "torpedoed" because of a phrase
it does not contain invented by an economist and which does not
describe evolution by natural selection with any accuracy?

Why?

And yet Origin is
presented to us as groundbraking research and there this preposterous
phrase that should be deeply embarrasing to Evolutionists stands out
like a sore thumb: "...... nature's power of selection, that is
survival of the fittest."

So now a phrase which the book does not contain "stands out like a
sore thumb".

How?


The phrase Artificial Selection only appears ONCE. That's right once.
It was not used
before Darwin's time but "coined" by Darwin. And "coined" is the
correct term used
byhttp://en.wikipedia.org/Artificial_selection, it was not formaly
established in any
way.


So what?
It's a descriptive term applied to what humans do which contrasts it
to natural selection.

Even Dr.Wilkins made a factually errenous statement by saying that the
phrase was in use
before Darwin published origin of Species. And this seems to be common
confusion.

I doubt that Wilkins is wrong in this. After all, his knowledge of the
history of evolutionary science comes from rather more extensive
sources that a google search on the phrase. I'm sure that if you were
to challenge him on this matter he could cite earlier useage of the
term.

What was in observation was dogs breeding - nobody conflated this with
"selections" - until Darwin mucked up the English language.

Yes, dogs and cats and cows bred. And if you took the strong cow it
would breed
strong cowlings. What about it? Why does this cause such childlike
excitement for
the evolutionists. Darwin just couldn't contain himself. He when
ballistic when he
saw finch or basically anything organic.

It's a pity you are so ignorant on the subject. Darwin actually failed
to recognise the significance of the Galapagos finches until someone
else pointed it out to him.

Scientists coin terms to identify the phenomena they observe. How else
can they set out clearly what they are describing?

And why do Cows exist?
Because a momma cow
and dadda cow had well you know mmh some fun :) And if this momma and
dadda cow did'nt
breed well then there would'nt be any cows. Why is this fact of life
so overwhelming
for evolutionists?

I have asked the question Who did the Selecting. And it seems Darwin
provides me with
the answer:"survival of the fittest."

Darwin neither coined nor used the phrase.

And since "survival of the
fittest" is obvious nonsense as all Evolutionists, Id'sts,
Creationists would agree - Darwin has just rubbished a perfectly sound
word "Selection".


And 150 years later everybody is discussing "selections" as they
presume established by Darwin. Creationites, Dawkinights, and
Dembskiites all of them suffering from a deep mental disturbance as
they babble on in their Falun Gong like "selections" invented
language.

Has it never occurred to you that if you babble nonsensically about a
subject about which you know little you will undermine your argument?



And Appeal to Abstract Authority is now such an ingrained logical
fallacy in
99% of the population and this forum that it is becoming basically
impossible to have
any sort of sensible discussion.

No evolutionary scientist makes any appeal to any abstract authority
in any aspect of science. Your evident ignorance of this inconvenient
fact will not make it go away.

I am going to try and explain this
one more time and this is a statement of religious belief:
Science,Evolution, Fairies, Orcs, Elves,flees and trees don't declare,
postulate,decree, state, establish or say anything - human beings
do,like Fourier, Laplace, Maxwell, Newton,
Kepler and Einstein.


Your point being? Or have you forgotten how to make a point?

That's it. You either believe this or you don't. You either accept 1+1
= 2 or you don't
I can't formally prove this religious belief of mine that "Science"
does'nt say anything,
I just believe it. And the reason why we are having such crossed lines
on this forum, why it is as though I and you evolutionists are in some
sort of seperate dimension each, where Red is blue in mine and in
yours blue is red is because you all have a fundamental
logical flaw in your basic assumptions. You think "Science" declares
things.

Who on earth made the statement that "science" declares anything?


And what can I say, the language confusion rages on and the
meaningless debates with it.
Debates about "selections" that will immediatly cease once our
language confusion stops.

The only confusion over language in this post is yours. Scientists are
very concerned to establish precise use of terms in the correct
context.

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do ... Clarifying what Darwin ... the fittest are those survive and thus what survives, survives, what ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Communist deniers
    ... direct link between Darwin and communism is less well understood. ... the shocking tendency of some evolutionists to attempt to disavow the ... about the danger that we face should a certain madman have a nuclear weapon. ... Wouldn't natural selection fit ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Difference between random and non-random Natural Selection?
    ... You do know that Darwin coined Artificial selection in 1859. ... I know that the concept of 'selection' by natural processes was ... "...Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Foxnews says NS is random - Coyne begs to differ.
    ... "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do ... Notice how Darwin was begging the question with AS: ... Artificial Selection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ... removing 'race polluters' and 'race contaminants' and is not even able ... based on the idea that is the main contribution of Darwin. ... based on "animal breeding" and the conception of selection that is pre- ... design animal breeding for humans") and eugenics is based on the above ...
    (talk.origins)