Re: Re: Using evolution's effects

On 1 May 2007 23:17:50 -0700, bimms@xxxxxxxx enriched this group when
s/he wrote:


Artificial selection is the exact opposite of evolution. If you have
artificiality, you have ID. That's just the way it is.

You are redefining ID (like a chameleon) into a form so that it can be
agreed to be everyone.

No, I'm not. Artificial selection is ID. Period.

No it is not.

They are equivalent,
in the sense that both assume an Intelligence guiding the process of
Natural Selection.

Evolution is evolution.

And FYI, I agree that Natural Selection happens, WITHIN species.
Natural Selection (within species) is expected in both Creationist and
Evolutionary scenarios, and thus the fact that NS occurs does not help
us to decide between evolution or creation.

Evolution happens. We have 3.8 billion years of fossil records to
prove that,



NOBODY WAS SUGGESTING THAT IT WAS. His point was that selection on
phenotypic effects, present in the existing generation with no memory
or foresight, can create big differences over many generations. He was
not saying that the farmer equals natural selection. He was saying
that the farmer's behaviour in selecting is analogous to the natural
selection of the creature's environment.

It is only "analogous" if you also want to say that Intelligent Design
is likewise "analogous" to evolution.

Evolution happens - ID does not.

Somehow I don't think that will fly very well here at talk.origins.

know anything about genetics (many do today, but they didn't in the
past). He just has to favour the best milk producers. Natural
selection may favour, for example, the fastest, or those with the best
eyesight (it doesn't matter, so long as it increases their chances of
survival). The fact that natural selection exists (eg. the best
equipped to survive are more likely to survive) is undisputable --
livewire was bringing our attention to the fact that phenotypic
selection does indeed have an effect on the population.

OF course NS is indisputable. It is only SPECIATION that is disputed.

Then you expose your stupidity. Speciation is just a logical (and
observed) step.

Creationists know that Natural Selection occurs all the time.....
WITHIN SPECIES.

I think you will find that most creationists disagree.

Big deal, that is not what Darwin's book was about. He did not call
his book "Origin of Natural Selection." Nor did He call it "Origin of
Genetic Mutations." Nope. He called it "Origin of Species." His title
makes it perfectly clear what his radical new idea was.

It is a title, do not take that title in isolation from the ideas it
contains.

And the attempts by modern evolutionists to muddy the waters by saying
that natural selection and genetic mutation are somehow "evidence for
evolution" is simply wrong-headed.

We have come a long way in the last 150 years. Sadly people like you
seem to have been left behind.



Evolutionists have never claimed this. The biological definition of a
species is to do with their ability to reproduce with other creatures

I encourage you to read both the speciation faq as well as numerous
debates I have had with several people on this newsgroup. In the FAQ,
it talks of the BSC, but it tries to partially argue against it. That
way, it can trot out numerous morphological-phenetic "speciations"
which are based upon "how animals look" and supposedly a new species
is defined by morphology rather than reproductive isolation.

Try reading.

You are correct that the BSC is based on reproduction, but if you
limit observed speciations to that alone, (reproductive isolation) it
is mind-blowing how few of these have even been CLAIMED to have been
observed.

Millions have been observed in the fossil record.

[snip more of his rubbish.]

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... definitions of "evolution." ... evolution within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Timmy, your comments please
    ... Darwin never suggested that natural selection was ... The simple basis of his ideas on evolution can even be ... darker hue - and all species have variations - were more likely to ... used to explain the central proposition of Darwinism, ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)
  • Re: Using evolutions effects
    ... Evolution cannot be guided by any intelligence. ... and his evidence for natural selection was derived ... referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. ... the process of speciation; a gradual change in a group of living ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Using evolutions effects
    ... And FYI, I agree that Natural Selection happens, WITHIN species. ... us to decide between evolution or creation. ... species is to do with their ability to reproduce with other creatures ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Timmy, your comments please
    ... knowledge in suggesting that changes in species are the result of choice ... Darwin never suggested that natural selection was ... The simple basis of his ideas on evolution can even be ... This is a simple but perfect example of Darwinism in action and his ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)