What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Hardly a useful statement as the survival rate for all living things is extremely low as everything eventually dies.

The fact remains that your source was factually demonstrably wrong.

wa:do

So then - even YOU eliminate natural selection as a survival mechanism.

WA: DO!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

the fossil record shows us how ignorant some creationist are to the point, there closed minds will not open when slapped with the truth repeatedly

It also shows how creationist twist the truth into their own personal lies that they spread at will

 

[Autodidact]

You wouldn't be saying that if you were able to quickly dispatch the information I present. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a myth and does not exist in nature. My information proves it.
Outdated?
"During the summer, an oyster lays about 500 million eggs within the water to be fertilized by the male's sperm. Soon after that a pinhead sized larva swim around and hatch contained by about ten hours. In two days, shells initiate to form and two weeks later pea-sized "spat" sink to the bottom. Living on its hollowed out shell, the oyster grows one inch a year. Adults can live to be ten years ripened and reproduce billions of times. With so many predators of the oyster, singular about one within a million will survive."
What is the average number of eggs laid by the feminine American Oyster per year?

You realize that what you describing is natural selection, right?

How could natural selection NOT happen? It's logically impossible. Are you arguing that the fittest don't survive? Fitness is defined as "more likely to survive." Therefore, by definition, those that survive are more fit. You're not even making sense at this point.

As the man said: Did nature pick that single oyster because it simply was the fittest?

No, nature didn't pick anything. Because it was more fit--and luckier--it survived.

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

What you and Prof. Grasse, who turned out to be wrong, need to understand is that millions of mutations happen every generation, and only the lucky/beneficial ones survive. If you actually do the math, which Biology has done, you see there is no probability problem. In fact, it is impossible to see how this would not work:

Deleterious mutations die out.
Beneficial mutations are retained.
Neutral mutations don't matter.

 

[Autodidact]

So then - even YOU eliminate natural selection as a survival mechanism.

WA: DO!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

It's exactly the opposite. Low survival rates = natural selection at work.

The harder it is to survive, the more nature is selecting. Duh.

 

[wilsoncole]

NATURAL SELECTION <------(Source)

DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."
This, above, is from your source.....

Right!
And this is telling me he says that survival of the fittest occurs in individual cases (see blue, above), as he outlined, and not a survival mechanism of entire species as Darwin asserted.
Mayr's remarks (above) do not point to natural selection as a survival mechanism for entire sppecies either - does it?
If insecticide resistance was a survival mechanism for ANY species of bacteria or pests, THEY would be the dominant species now, impossible to eradicate and multiplying unchecked - a serious problem for mankind.

Right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

You realize that what you describing is natural selection, right?

How could natural selection NOT happen? It's logically impossible. Are you arguing that the fittest don't survive? Fitness is defined as "more likely to survive." Therefore, by definition, those that survive are more fit. You're not even making sense at this point.

What accounts for the fact that those that are not as fit survive right alongside the fit ones?
Who's not making sense?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

What accounts for the fact that those that are not as fit survive right alongside the fit ones?
Who's not making sense?

You. Not being as fit to survive means that statistically there are _less_ specimens surviving, not that there are _no_ specimens.

It is not hard to understand.

 

[wilsoncole]

You realize that what you describing is natural selection, right?

Wrong!
What I am describing is, "as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

You. Not being as fit to survive means that statistically there are _less_ specimens surviving, not that there are _no_ specimens.

It is not hard to understand.

We are talking SURVIVAL of entire species - not quantity of survivors.
After all these years, those "not being fit to survive" should all be eliminated by now. They just weren't fit.
Only they are!
If the fit survivors can be aged to 50-90,000 years, so can the unfit ones who still survive.

Sticking to theory isn't working.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

So then - even YOU eliminate natural selection as a survival mechanism.

WA: DO!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Right!
And this is telling me he says that survival of the fittest occurs in individual cases (see blue, above), as he outlined, and not a survival mechanism of entire species as Darwin asserted.
Mayr's remarks (above) do not point to natural selection as a survival mechanism for entire sppecies either - does it?
If insecticide resistance was a survival mechanism for ANY species of bacteria or pests, THEY would be the dominant species now, impossible to eradicate and multiplying unchecked - a serious problem for mankind.

Right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

You do not understand ToE, and specifically you don't understand survival of the fittest. Would you like to learn?

How can I make it simple for you? A species is just a whole bunch of individuals. Does that help?

 

[Autodidact]

What accounts for the fact that those that are not as fit survive right alongside the fit ones?
Who's not making sense?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Fitness means "more likely to survive." Therefore, those that are more likely to survive are more fit. Those that are not as fit survive at a lower rate, so their genes do not get propagated as much. Get it? It's not that complicated.

 

[Autodidact]

We are talking SURVIVAL of entire species - not quantity of survivors.

Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. Entire species don't do anything; individuals do. Those individuals are grouped into species. When the last individual dies, the species is extinct.

After all these years, those "not being fit to survive" should all be eliminated by now. They just weren't fit.
Only they are!

Actually, no. They went extinct. >90% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.
Or do you deny that species go extinct?

If the fit survivors can be aged to 50-90,000 years, so can the unfit ones who still survive.

What?

Sticking to theory isn't working.

It might help if you learned what it says first.

 

[waitasec]

We are talking SURVIVAL of entire species - not quantity of survivors.
After all these years, those "not being fit to survive" should all be eliminated by now. They just weren't fit.
Only they are!
If the fit survivors can be aged to 50-90,000 years, so can the unfit ones who still survive.

Sticking to theory isn't working.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

99% of all known species were not fit to survive...and didn't.
i don't understand the point you're making.

 

[Autodidact]

We are talking SURVIVAL of entire species - not quantity of survivors.
After all these years, those "not being fit to survive" should all be eliminated by now. They just weren't fit.
Only they are!
If the fit survivors can be aged to 50-90,000 years, so can the unfit ones who still survive.

Sticking to theory isn't working.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Wrong!
What I am describing is, "as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

When 999,999 oysters die, and one lives, nature "selected" that one. That's natural selection--in a nutshell.

 

[wilsoncole]

Wilsoncole:
"His work has proved that mutations have never produced new species."

You claim new species have never been observed.
When I offer to show you proof of just that, you admit you will not change your position. You have proven to us that you are not honest.
You are a creationist.

I will have proven that I am not stupid.
Will you please show me where I made that claim?
If you can't, who's not honest?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We are talking SURVIVAL of entire species - not quantity of survivors.
After all these years, those "not being fit to survive" should all be eliminated by now. They just weren't fit.
Only they are!
If the fit survivors can be aged to 50-90,000 years, so can the unfit ones who still survive.

Sticking to theory isn't working.

You're not the brightest, are you.

Survival of the fittest does not mean that those "not fit to survive" die out. It simply means that, on average, the members of a particular species that are more fit to survive in certain environments will tend to reproduce more successfully than those that are not.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[wilsoncole]

When 999,999 oysters die, and one lives, nature "selected" that one. That's natural selection--in a nutshell.

Oh! I see.
First, they were "lucky," (Reply # 1263) now they're "selected."
Definition:

se·lect

&#8194; &#8194;
–verb (used with object) 1. to choose in preference to another or others; pick out.


–verb (used without object) 2. to make a choice; pick.


–adjective 3. chosen in preference to another or others; selected.

4. choice; of special value or excellence.

5. careful or fastidious in selecting; discriminating.

6. carefully or fastidiously chosen; exclusive."
Nature does not work at our every whim.
Which is it?
Can't have it both ways.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Gunfingers]

Stop anthropomorphising nature and this might start to make sense to you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right!
And this is telling me he says that survival of the fittest occurs in individual cases (see blue, above), as he outlined, and not a survival mechanism of entire species as Darwin asserted.

It's telling me that it does occur in all cases. This particular snipet only cites a few cases is all.

Mayr's remarks (above) do not point to natural selection as a survival mechanism for entire sppecies either - does it?

It's giving a generalization is all it's doing. The main fact of the whole matter is...(IT HAPPENS)...That's something, at least from the paragraph I cited from your source, that's not in contention. The creationist stance is that "Natural Selection" doesn't happen at all and your source says it does.

If insecticide resistance was a survival mechanism for ANY species of bacteria or pests, THEY would be the dominant species now, impossible to eradicate and multiplying unchecked - a serious problem for mankind. Right?

FALSE. The fact of the matter is we don't develop one type of insecticide for the common roach as we are aware of this very fact that some will develop a resistance to it. No, so as they evolve...our techniques evolve as well. Additionally there are other factors that play a part as well such as an insects natural predetor, environment, life span.....etc.

Take the flu virus...we know for a fact it evolves which is why we currently have many strains and multiple types of vaccines to treat them. Another one worth recognizing is the highly adaptive (Staphylococcus) bacteria.

 

[Autodidact]

Wilsoncole:
"His work has proved that mutations have never produced new species."


I will have proven that I am not stupid.
Will you please show me where I made that claim?
If you can't, who's not honest?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that new species do, or don't come into existence?