Darwin's Theory is False

S/M says: What is a desirable trait? Any trait that responds well to change.

Woody asks: What change? Wouldn't evolution still occur if the environment did not change? I think it would. Therefore, you have not defined a desirable trait.

S/M says: How is the selection done? I guess Darwin might answer by the struggle for existence.

Woody says: This again is a tautology because we all struggle for existence, and some more so than others. So it doesn't really identify a cause, because it does not provide a qualification.

Consider the poverty stricken nations. Are there less people living in them because of their struggle for existence? Absolutely false. Their birth rates are the highest in the world, and their populations are going up at a higher rate than the developed nations. Do you think they are more evolved humans as a result? Probably not. Then again, maybe they are. Who is to decide?
 
Last edited:
You were talking about natural selection, not about evolution. Natural selection cannot work if things remain the same.

Nobody specified change btw as environmental change.

Read the frikking link if you want a definition of struggle for existence. Don't make up your own.

what darwin said:
I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.
Click to expand...

Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.
Click to expand...

That every species reproduces to such a degree that not all progeny can live is a quality of life itself.

Natural selection acts on the variation that is produced and describes (NOT CAUSES) the tendency for favourable variations to leave more prodigy, which is an intrinsic quality of life itself. There is no cause. There is no designer other than circumstances consisting of external and internal environment in the broadest sense.
 
Last edited:
S/M says: Nobody specified change btw as environmental change.

Woody says: Yep, that seems to be a common problem around here -- no specifications and no definitions. Would you care to define change?
 
S/M: any change

Woody says: See what I mean? No specificity. All objects in nature change over time. So what?
 
From your first 'technical' paper in your first post:

Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers).

We just heard Darwin say that natural selection in not random but describes it as the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

In what way is the selection of certain variations and the rejection of others random?

Why would we take you even seriously. You read someone's website. You haven't even read Darwin's work. I gave you a link to 'the origin on species'. Did you even bother to read anything in it? No.

I was polite enough to point out already 2 idiotic mistakes in the 'technical' paper you are heavily relying on. I answered all your questions. What are you trying to do here?

Telling lies will get you into hell you know.
 
Woody says: See what I mean? No specificity. All objects in nature change over time. So what?

S/M says: That's why there is evolution.

congrats. You finally got it.

Woody says: And you don't see this as a tautology? All crows are either red or not red. So what does that tell me about the color of a crow? This is a tautology.

S/M says: Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers).

Woody sys: Genome theory is a little after Darwin's time, no?

S/M says: We just heard Darwin say that natural selection in not random but describes it as the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

Woody says: We're back to square one again. What's a "favorable variation"?

S/M says:You haven't even read Darwin's work. I gave you a link to 'the origin on species'. Did you even bother to read anything in it? No.

Woody says: I was an excellent biology student in high school. The best in my class. Your statement is presumptuous. And yes -- Darwin's theory was taught back then. I didn't come before Darwin.
 
Woody said:
Woody says: And you don't see this as a tautology? All crows are either red or not red. So what does that tell me about the color of a crow? This is a tautology.
Click to expand...

The scientific description of a process is not a tautology. Please explain why it is an tautology. Saying it is one isn't going to convince anyone. The links you go have been refuted where they say it is a tautology.


Woody said:
Woody sys: Genome theory is a little after Darwin's time, no?
Click to expand...
Do you have a point? Never heard of genome theory btw. But then again I am just a biologist for a living.

Woody said:
Woody says: We're back to square one again. What's a "favorable variation"?
Click to expand...
A variation that can deal better with the current change.


Woody said:
Woody says: I was an excellent biology student in high school. The best in my class.
Click to expand...
That must have been in kansas.
 
Spurious, I am increasingly coming to recognise the following (it took me so long because I am at heart not too bright, think well of my fellow humans, and find it difficult to imagine there are people dumber than I.)
Persons like Woody have to be one of the following
a) Genuinely of low intellectual capacity.
b) Deliberately dishonest with themselves
c) Deliberately dishonest with others
I can find no other satisfactory explanation for their refusal to see the blatantly obvious when it is persistently explained to them. The first condition is excusable, though most persons who aren't too bright are generally willing to listen to those who obviously may know more. The second two explanations are very unattractive, especially in one who has declared their Christianity so publicly. To consistently lie is quite different from an occasional lie told in the heat of the moment.
For the sake of Woody's soul I trust he is just thick.
 
The mistake Woody makes is in thinking his views are the product of the same kind of logical deduction as scientists, when actually he is simply defending his culture. To acknowledge the results of science would be like abandoning his whole family. It would mean that the people he has looked up to have been less than completely trustworthy, and that's a hard pill to swallow.
 
Woody said:
I was an excellent biology student in high school. The best in my class. Your statement is presumptuous. And yes -- Darwin's theory was taught back then. I didn't come before Darwin.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Resting on your laurels as an "excellent biology student in high school," it would seem that you are grasping for elusive straws by scraping an old and insignificant barrel to prove you have some sort of erudite credibility in this subject. Since you have stated repeatedly in past posts that you are some high-faluting master engineer with all kinds of advanced college degrees and professional awards, any scientific evidence you may have thought you were submitting to this forum just fizzled into thin air.
 
I just spoke to the cave man, while he was in the search for a fire!
 
1) S/M says: What is a desirable trait? Any trait that responds well to change.

2) Woody asks: What change? Wouldn't evolution still occur if the environment did not change? I think it would. Therefore, you have not defined a desirable trait.

3) S/M says: You were talking about natural selection, not about evolution. Natural selection cannot work if things remain the same.

4) Nobody specified change btw as environmental change.

5) Woody says: Yep, that seems to be a common problem around here -- no specifications and no definitions. Would you care to define change?

6) S/M:
any change.

Or as Darwin said it: change in the conditions of life

7) Woody says: See what I mean? No specificity. All objects in nature change over time. So what?

8) S/M says: That's why there is evolution.

congrats. You finally got it.

9) Woody says: And you don't see this as a tautology? All crows are either red or not red. So what does that tell me about the color of a crow? This is a tautology.

10) S/M says: We just heard Darwin say that natural selection in not random but describes it as the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

11) Woody says: We're back to square one again. What's a "favorable variation"?

12) S/M says: A variation that can deal better with the current change.

Woody says: you have a really nice do loop going here Spurious Monkey.

All you have to say now is that a "favorable variation" is the same as a "desirable trait" and we can go back to the top and start the do loop all over again. In logic this is called "circular reasoning."

While you're at it you can explain what a "condition of life" is in item #6, and "any change"

On item #7, I said all objects change over time. "All objects" includes rocks, manure, spoiled eggs, your anatomy as it ages, and the baby's diapers.

On item #8, You say that's why there's evolution, and I must say "Congrats your faith in Darwinism is stronger than mine."

Quite entertaining -- I'm really enjoying this. :D
 
Last edited:
A favorable variation is one that projects the genes of a species into the future. The environment can include sexual selection, so even if the physical environment does not change, the cultural environment can, since females can select for traits that demonstrate good health (the peacock, for example). If the environment is relatively stable, the rate of evolutionary change will slow down.
 
S/G says: The environment can include sexual selection, so even if the physical environment does not change, the cultural environment can, since females can select for traits that demonstrate good health (the peacock, for example).

Woody says: I won't disagree, Most humans would like an attractive mate from the opposite sex. So are we as humans evolving to be better looking or is it the cosmetics? (I jest). Obesity is not a desireable trait, yet we are becoming more obese. Will selection winnow out those that are prone to be fat?
 
You can't refer back to humans to disprove generalities. And learn how to use quotes because I am not going to go through your messy posts anymore.

If you can't bother to do that write a paragraph stating your argument.
 
Darwin was very far-sighted and he came up with a beautiful theory. But imagine this: Take a bundle of kids. Don't teach them about fossils or evolution, just about biochemistry. I'd take every bet they would conclude the neodarwinian theory just from looking at the DNA. So Darwin's theory is one that has been itself explained by a grander scheme. Marvelous, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top