100 Refutations To Misconceptions About Evolution

[PanAtheist]

PanAtheist wrote

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless! Absolutely priceless! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!" :D :D :D

PanAtheist (in further explanation) wrote

Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!

And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.

It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!

To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.

It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D

Tenspace then wrote

Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory?

Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments)

Tenspace then wrote

Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments again!)

Tenspace then wrote

Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

This fart contributes nothing to the discussion, which is about the applicability of the WORDS "natural" and "selection", both of which I have already shown to be inappropriate and false (see above!) (that's right, the argument above, which you totally ignore, as you place your post which spouts drivel at me!)

Brainspace then wrote

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution.

Yes! There is a CONCEPT which is vital - and hence the need to get rid of a wanky idiotic TERM like "natural selection" to label it !
I have already explained in detail to you exactly why this label is wanky and idiotic - and instead of appreciating my explanation, and thanking me, you totally ignore it, and simply spout silly irrelevance!

Brainspace then wrote

Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

I just did! In the previous post!
Here Brainspace, you put "authority" above logic!
Wow! Way to go Ten!
Are you just being really stupid today, or is this how you are all the time? :D

Brainspace then wrote

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?

Is that what passes for a free-thinkers argument around here?!!
This is the 2 million people can't be wrong "argument"! :D

If you, Brainspace, are at the cutting-edge of "freethought" in the USA, it is no wonder your country is in the mess it is in!

It seems that is a waste of time to direct intelligent and helpful posts at you!
I place this post in the hope that another reader appreciates it! :thumbsup:

[PanAtheist]

It is shocking to see the witlessness displayed by Tenspace above.

The reckless misuse of language by evolutionary scientists is a critical part of the reason why they are failing to suceed in teaching the "how" of biological evolution to the people of the USA!

And it is shocking that "authority" and "follow-my-leader" is preferred by professed atheists such as Tenspace, over freethought.
That is a calamity!

Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection. Calling it wanky and idiotic is one thing but you have to explain fully why. If your ideas are valid perhaps you should send a manuscript to Nature. The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

[PanAtheist]

Down21 wrote

Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection. Calling it wanky and idiotic is one thing but you have to explain fully why. If your ideas are valid perhaps you should send a manuscript to Nature. The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

But I HAVE : in this post! (Which has been ignored twice already!)

Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!
And, as I have already indicated, there is much more to differential survival and reproduction than selection. We are talking about a concept which includes "blind forces", and it is incompatible with true communication and clear-thinking, to use "selection" as its name!

And Nature now effectively means "Everything"!
And therefore Natural is not a useful qualifier!
(it had best be restricted in future to its original use of pertaining to birth, or simply abandoned.)

Down21 wrote

Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection.

Actually it is you and Ten who have not even attempted to rationally address the explanation that I have already given!
(Or perhaps you don't know what it means to select something) :lol:

Natural Selection : can it survive ? :D

Down21 wrote

The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

What a scary sentiment!
It makes total anti-sense! :D

Writing to Nature is a good idea - thanks! :D
And sorry that this thread has been waylaid - but it happens around here ! :D
And it is all for the greater good! :thumbsup:

Do you honestly expect all biologists to adopt new terminology based on that "explanation" ? Tenspace addressed it already , the environment and genetic variation set up differential survival. Nobody has EVER suggested that this selection is conscious or just because when a human selects that that is how natural selection works.

[PanAtheist]

Down21 wrote

Do you honestly expect all biologists to adopt new terminology based on that "explanation" ?

Yes I expect they will!
Freethinking Scientists will get ever-more dynamically and sanely radical as The Enlightenment accelerates! :D

And as I have been taught biology at degree-level I am fully aware of the great extent to which poor terminology has tremendously held up the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And I am aware that the arrival of new and better terms accelerates the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And so are the vast majority of biologists!

Down21 wrote

Tenspace addressed it already , the environment and genetic variation set up differential survival.

That's a lie!
It was me that introduced the phrase differential survival in this thread!
And Brainspace hasn't rationally addressed anything that I have brought up here!
Yet I am glad you are picking up on that term!

Down21 wrote

Nobody has EVER suggested that this selection is conscious or just because when a human selects that that is how natural selection works.

The very word suggests it, which is why it is a very poor choice of a word.
Hello?! :lol:
We also need to keep this word "clean" for clear and honest use in the terms "mate selection" and "prey selection".

Victus wrote

Weird how the creationists always charge money, but the real scientists cite their sources for free. Anyways :offtopic:

Indeed. And it is also weird to see how creationists/ID proponents use Google and Wikipedia as sources (expensive ones at that, whew $450!) while the real scientists use www.pubmed.com for peer-reviewed scientific publications.

[Tenspace]

Pan, I am not ignoring your posts. I want to address them in detail, but I don't have alot of time right now.

I will say that your condescending tone isn't appropriate for a real discussion. You know I don't denigrate people, and I ask that you stop it until I've had a serious chance to respond.

And respond I will.

[PanAtheist]

Tenspace wrote

Pan, I am not ignoring your posts. I want to address them in detail, but I don't have alot of time right now.

Thank you for your interest.
I think my stance on this issue is a vital one!

Biology *has* really struggled with ideas and terms in the course of the history of evolutionary theory.
We both know this I think!

We now urgently need terms that help pedagoguery, not ones that hinder it!

We must aid the formation of realisations in people's minds.
"Natural selection" was a very useful ANALOGY for Darwin.
But like all analogies, it is easily taken too far, and this one has outlived its helpfulness.
(Except for use as a temporary analogy in the process of teaching "evolution")

Today, with our knowledge of DNA and all that (which Darwin didn't have) we can come up with better terms I think, with a wider scope. At the very least it will be heuristic to try! :D

Perhaps you are planning to defend biologists use of the term "Natural Selection" when you reply.
Here is an alternative challenge to you!
How about seeing if you can come up with a whole range of better terms which better describe the events of evolution?

[PanAtheist]

Tenspace wrote

Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

[Tenspace]

PanAtheist wrote

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

Well, seeing as you drove this thread right off the side of the cliff, I agree.

Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

15.) That there are no transition fossils
All fossils, all lifeforms are transitionary because there is no goal to evolution.

16.) That humans evolved from the Apes that are around today.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and neither is directly descended from either.

Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

AndyHolland wrote

Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

What are you babbling about. Take all you evo questions to the Understanding Evolution is Hard? thread.

PanAtheist wrote

Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!

Darwin addressed this kind of objection himself, almost 150 years ago.

Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. Some have even
imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life. No one objects to
agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man’s selection; and in this case the individual differences
given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected
that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even
been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense
of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the
elective affinities of the various elements? – and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with
which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the
movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying
the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,
and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial
objection will be forgotten.
(bold emphasis added, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, The Modern Library, 1998, p109)

[Tenspace]

AndyHolland wrote

Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

You brought it up. No one here believes evolutionary theory encompasses origins of life - origins of Man, yes, but not the starting point of life. Yes, there are scientists and others who don't make this clear; we were even discussing this in another thread recently. But their opinions would be critically examined if posted here, I'm sure.

AndyHolland wrote

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

Is there a biological Theory Of Everything? Could new discoveries mesh evolutionary theory with abiogenesis to give us a complete picture of life, from creation through diversity? Maybe we're both wrong, and evolution will one incorporate "aliveness" (props to Pan), just as we might one day see the incorporation of gravity and quantum physics.