Philosophy Discussion Forums

Four reasons why natural selection cant account for evolution or so called new species.

natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare
”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/phi ... ection.pdf

1) Cambridge explosion
Darwin saw the Cambridge explosion as proving his theory of evolution to be false

"Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin , C., The Origin of Species
, 1872, pp.316-317.)

now

" No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery."(Eldredge, N.,
The Monkey Business
, 1982, p. 46.)”-at the present time nothing has changed

also Dawkins
" “Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups . And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."
(Dawkins, Richard,
The Blind Watchmaker
," 1986, p.229).-nothing has changed to the present

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species

3) ”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population
and causes harmful traits to become more rare
”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”
Seeing bad genes can become common ie breast cancer this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common.

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the Cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant

gimal wrote:Four reasons why natural selection cant account for evolution or so called new species.

All this is non-scientific rationalization efforts for the faithful to hang on to their beliefs.

You wouldn't believe how many believers have left the church and Christianity because of exactly this type of knowledge-benders. These young people who left the Christian brotherhood realized how many more other lies must be hidden in a faith which boasts such nonsensical, ridiculous statements as your so-called Four Reasons.

Renee, if you want to play Creationists versus Evolution, gimal won't join in. He/she will just periodically repeat one of his/her previous posts. Possibly a "bot"?. A bit boring.

The species paradox disapproves theory of evolution ie species evolving.

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ARADOX.pdf

who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species
either
1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

NOW
There is a a dilemma
1)in order to resolve the dean paradox
the dean paradox makes you abandon the word species
in which case biology is destroyed

or
2)biology uses the word bird
signifying it is different from its parent organism
science uses the word species
as such
you have the dean paraodox

in order to resolve the dean paradox
the dean paradox makes you abandon the word species
in which case biology is destroyed
and all this talk in biology about speciation species this species that is meaningless nonsense

I guess even bots have a sense of humour. Fair play.

-- Updated November 16th, 2016, 9:45 am to add the following --

I just read the OP. It's very funny. I like this part:

Get me to the monkey from the single cell. Name all the life forms between the amoeba and man. Then maybe this whole thing will make more sense to me.

Amoeba, Monkoeba, Monkey, Humkey, Human.

There. Easy.

Biologists dont know what a species is -thus evolution of species is nonsense.



gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/phi ... ection.pdf

Biology end in meaningless nonsense as its idea of species ends in self contradiction
species is a basic concept in biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

“In biology a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank”

Yet biologist don’t know what a species is-so much for a science that cant even identify its object of investigation


gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/phi ... ection.pdf

Many e seem to think biologists know what species are



We hear biologist and such figures as dawkins gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species BUT biologists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

some argue that
species can breed with each other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
“A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring… [this following part will be discussed in the appendix where it will be shown leads to nonsense and again biologist cant agree on what a species is] While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche


yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"


With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless



some argue that
species can breed with each other
yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense

take the Bactrian and dromedary camels they are different species yet they can breed with fertile off spring which should mean they are the same species- yet they are different species

http://www.camelphotos.com/camel_breeds.html

Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.




yet these two different species can interbreed and have fertile off spring
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm

thus we have a contradiction
dromedary and Bactrian camels are different species
yet they can interbreed , which only species can

thus the notion of species ends in self contradiction

thus because biologist cant tell us what a species is

thus all of this taxonomy is meaningless nonsense

Scientists have long sought in vain for evidence of the missing link between the Amoeba and the Monkoeba. It is a source of much embarrassment to them.

-- Updated November 16th, 2016, 10:31 am to add the following --

They've found it! It's called the Monkoeba-oeba.

---

Scientists have long sought in vain for evidence of the missing link between the Amoeba and the Monkoeba-oeba. It is a source of much embarrassment to them.


(For serious version click link.)

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 17#p278017

Why bother with all this language game -As the poet says.
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... ssible.pdf

Each view contains within it its negation as all views end in meaninglessness

I don't know what you mean.

Dolphin42 wrote:Renee, if you want to play Creationists versus Evolution, gimal won't join in. He/she will just periodically repeat one of his/her previous posts. Possibly a "bot"?. A bit boring.

Oh.

Thanks for the warning and for saving me. Wrestling with the arguments of a Quixotic person invariably becomes a Quixotic task.

Plus I tend to exhaust myself.

The 'belief of Darwinism' is interestingly centered on Anglican Theology :
William Paley's Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 1802

“In order to pass the BA examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley’s Evidences of Christianity,
and his Moral Philosophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out
the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of
this book and, as I may add, of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of
these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I
then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind”
(Charles Darwin,Autobiography).


Beyond this theological 'frame' is a packaging of scientific fact/theory based on carefully studied and observed biological manifestations know as evolution (Darwinism)

A belief in Darwinism is a belief that there is a time dependent and progressive model of variation and structure guiding biological processes.
It's a belief that existed and was put in clear language by many before Darwin. The truth thus lived on through aspects of his work as all truths thus do throughout the passage of time.