“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

Fitness is the quantitative representation of natural and selective selection within evolutionary biology. It applies to either a genotype or a phenotype in a given environment. It describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by the individuals of the specific genotype or phenotype.
The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives. What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct one is the determining factor. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or disadvantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.

Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual who reproduces the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

Here is the kicker, in any population, there will be individuals leaving more offspring than others, even if the population is not changing or if the population is headed for extinction. The fossil record does not record any change as being advantageous and determining the survival of the mutating sample and neither could Darwin point to any impressive example of natural selection in process. Therefore Natural Selection is nothing more than a hypothesis void of experimental or observational confirmation. So when I ask how a fish can become a man, I am not impressed when the evolutionist points to Natural Selection, knowing that the species that leaves the most offspring is the one that leaves the most offspring. The only choice is to accept Natural Selection by blind faith not reason.


You should note that fitness ( w ) is a probability rather than an actual number of offspring. It is a property of a class of individuals for example- homozygous for alleles at a particular locus.

Here is a selection from the surprisingly good Wiki entry on Fitness (biology) I'm sure that it will make this concept abundantly clear to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology) I did try to copy and paste, but the formatting was too complex. I'm sure that you are capable of following the link.
Assuming that you have read the above with honesty and humility, I'm sure that you will realise that your comments here are ridiculous. If on the other hand you feel your faith is threatened by truth, as heretofore, then you will learn nothing, ignore what is said to you, hide in a darkened room for a while, then emerge to spout the same nonsense over again.
I love the highlighted portion. I present science, logic, and reason and you present your blind faith and then ask if my faith is threatened. No, my faith is backed up by science, logic, and reason. Yours lacks miserably.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
"Liver fossils" are irrelevant to the subject matter. The topic is not the existence of liver fossils but the existence of a scientific model that explains depicts, shows, how the process of descent with mod through NS operates using empirical terms.
Do you know of one?
You are wrong.

They are relevant. They don't exist. In medicine we use Pathologists to study tissues., You must be a lab science and medical school outsider.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]
No, it was not an ad hominem. It was a humorous quotemine, made because you keep ignoring everything I say to you. For instance, in this very post you completely ignored my point: Descent with modification through NS is a perfectly legitimate model, and all three components are found in nature.

If you want actual discussion, you'll need to stop ignoring my points and questions.
 
You are wrong.

They are relevant. They don't exist. In medicine we use Pathologists to study tissues., You must be a lab science and medical school outsider.
I am not saying that liver fossils are generally irrelevant, but they are irrelevant to the topic. The topic is the existence of a scientific model that explains descent with modification through NS using terms found in nature.
 
"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.



- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/heres_what_the082461.html#sthash.ZbZ2jNnd.dpuf

The patterns clash with evo dogma as does the microbiology
Irreverent: A science model is not equivalent to a pattern. I can write a multitude of patterns explaining A, B or C without using one term found in nature. And I can logically conclude from Niles Eldridge a paleontologist, that for 120 years Darwinist have been clueless.
 
No, it was not an ad hominem. It was a humorous quotemine, made because you keep ignoring everything I say to you. For instance, in this very post you completely ignored my point: Descent with modification through NS is a perfectly legitimate model, and all three components are found in nature.

If you want actual discussion, you'll need to stop ignoring my points and questions.

I have never denied that the three components are found in nature. That is a bad conclusion on your part. What I have stated over and over again is that there does not exist any scientific model, using terms found in nature, explaining how descent with modification through NS operates or functions. Nothing, and because there exist nothing there is no scientific mooring to attached your Darwinist worldview to. What you have is basically a science free worldview, equivalent to Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish, Christian or Muslim account of creation.

Not only was it an ad hominem attack but a deliberate misquotation.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I have never denied that the three components are found in nature. That is a bad conclusion on your part. What I have stated over and over again is that there does not exist any scientific model, using terms found in nature, explaining how descent with modification through NS operates or functions. Nothing, and because there exist nothing there is no scientific mooring to attached your Darwinist worldview to. What you have is basically a science free worldview, equivalent to Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish, Christian or Muslim account of creation.
You claimed it was faith-based but still haven't told me which part - descent, modification, or NS - requires faith.

You've claimed there is no model using 'terms found in nature' - but descent with modification through NS is the model, and you agree that all three of these components are found in nature.

It's not at all clear what more you are asking for, or what your objection is.
 
You claimed it was faith-based but still haven't told me which part - descent, modification, or NS - requires faith.
You don't get to control the narrative. I have answered you multiple times. The cause is not descent, modification or NS but descent with modification through NS. And that is faith based.
You've claimed there is no model using 'terms found in nature' - but descent with modification through NS is the model, and you agree that all three of these components are found in nature.

It's not at all clear what more you are asking for, or what your objection is.
Just because you present it as a model, does not qualify it as a scientific model. What am I asking for? A model that explains in detail how descent with modification through NS operates. Similar to the model for beta blockers or making baklava. 160 years since Origin of Species and not one scientific model explaining one transition of species X into species Y. In the real scientific world we call that blind faith.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You don't get to control the narrative. I have answered you multiple times. The cause is not descent, modification or NS but descent with modification through NS. And that is faith based.
How can the whole be faith-based if none of the component parts are faith-based?

Just because you present it as a model, does not qualify it as a scientific model. What am I asking for? A model that explains in detail how descent with modification through NS operates. Similar to the model for beta blockers or making baklava. 160 years since Origin of Species and not one scientific model explaining one transition of species X into species Y. In the real scientific world we call that blind faith.
What disqualifies D+M-thru-NS as a model? Do you just mean that you don't understand it?

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

If you think I've used any terms in this explanation that are not 'found in nature' then please be specific in pointing them out.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
The theory of Natural Selection promotes that the species that survives is the fittest, and the fittest is the species that survives
No, it doesn't. Fittest is not defined as "species that survive". Fittest is defined as those with a higher probability of surviving than others. The fittest don't always survive, the less fit don't always die out but on average across time that is what happens.
 

rossum

Active member
Fittest is not defined as "species that survive". Fittest is defined as those with a higher probability of surviving than others.
Almost right. The fittest are those individuals that are more successful at producing grandchildren: that is producing fertile offspring that themselves successfully reproduce. That way more copies of the successful individual's genes are carried into future generations.

Living for 100 years with 2 grandchildren is less successful than living for 50 years with 4 grandchildren.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Almost right. The fittest are those individuals that are more successful at producing grandchildren: that is producing fertile offspring that themselves successfully reproduce. That way more copies of the successful individual's genes are carried into future generations.

Living for 100 years with 2 grandchildren is less successful than living for 50 years with 4 grandchildren.
You are correct. I should have said fittest is defined as those with a higher probability of surviving and successfully reproducing than others.
 
How can the whole be faith-based if none of the component parts are faith-based?
This can be easily settled. Since the Darwinist claim that D+M-thru-NS is evident in nature today, and since Darwinist claim to be science-driven, a science model using terms found in nature explaining this process should not be such a chore. We have such models explaining mundane things. Such as concrete, paint, electrical circuits, ammunition, ink, paper, etc. Your 'science base' worldview is primarily tied to a science free mooring. Do you have anything, a science model using terms found in nature describing the evolution of X into Y? Otherwise you have greater faith than the pope. Because my faith has always been based on logic and reason, I can sincerely conclude that I do not have enough faith to be a Darwinist.
What disqualifies D+M-thru-NS as a model? Do you just mean that you don't understand it?

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

If you think I've used any terms in this explanation that are not 'found in nature' then please be specific in pointing them out.
And here we have it. A science free testimonial attempting to be passed off as science. Your explanation carries as much science as the Genesis account. It is all faith-based.
 
No, it doesn't. Fittest is not defined as "species that survive". Fittest is defined as those with a higher probability of surviving than others. The fittest don't always survive, the less fit don't always die out but on average across time that is what happens.
Did you bother to read the next sentence?
What does Natural Selection identify as the determining factor of the survival of the fittest? Whatever gave the surviving form the edge over the extinct one is the determining factor. Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing. Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or disadvantageous depending upon the surrounding environmental conditions the subject is found.
And your argument is?
 
Almost right. The fittest are those individuals that are more successful at producing grandchildren: that is producing fertile offspring that themselves successfully reproduce. That way more copies of the successful individual's genes are carried into future generations.

Living for 100 years with 2 grandchildren is less successful than living for 50 years with 4 grandchildren.

Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual who reproduces the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

Here is the kicker, in any population, there will be individuals leaving more offspring than others, even if the population is not changing or if the population is headed for extinction. The fossil record does not record any change as being advantageous and determining the survival of the mutating sample and neither could Darwin point to any impressive example of natural selection in process. Therefore Natural Selection is nothing more than a hypothesis void of experimental or observational confirmation. So when I ask how a fish can become a man, I am not impressed when the evolutionist points to Natural Selection, knowing that the species that leaves the most offspring is the one that leaves the most offspring. The only choice is to accept Natural Selection by blind faith not reason
 
You are correct. I should have said fittest is defined as those with a higher probability of surviving and successfully reproducing than others.
Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction. Following Natural Selection, the individual who reproduces the most offspring must have the qualities required for producing the most offspring, or the fittest individuals in a population [identified as these which leave the most offspring] will leave the most offspring.

Here is the kicker, in any population, there will be individuals leaving more offspring than others, even if the population is not changing or if the population is headed for extinction. The fossil record does not record any change as being advantageous and determining the survival of the mutating sample and neither could Darwin point to any impressive example of natural selection in process. Therefore Natural Selection is nothing more than a hypothesis void of experimental or observational confirmation. So when I ask how a fish can become a man, I am not impressed when the evolutionist points to Natural Selection, knowing that the species that leaves the most offspring is the one that leaves the most offspring. The only choice is to accept Natural Selection by blind faith not reason
 

rossum

Active member
Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage.
Advantage or disadvantage depends on the environment, and the environment changes. Resistance to Covid-19 used to be irrelevant, not an advantage. Today it is an advantage. Resistance to smallpox used to be an advantage -- just ask your Native American friends. Today smallpox is extinct so it is no longer an advantage.

Therefore Natural Selection is nothing more than a hypothesis void of experimental or observational confirmation.
Your sources are lying to you again. There is a large amount of confirmation of natural selection. The fact that you have ignored the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. For example, did your source refer you to Modiano (2001)? That is just one example of natural selection, showing the HbC mutation is superior to the HbS mutation, and has replaced it in parts of West Africa.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you?
 
Advantage or disadvantage depends on the environment, and the environment changes. Resistance to Covid-19 used to be irrelevant, not an advantage. Today it is an advantage. Resistance to smallpox used to be an advantage -- just ask your Native American friends. Today smallpox is extinct so it is no longer an advantage.
You did not read my post. +Based on the species thriving we can assume a characteristic to be advantageous to it, but in most cases, it is impossible to identify the advantage independently of the outcome; therefore any advantage can also be a disadvantage. Simply put, the historical record only confirms one advantage, success in reproduction.


Your sources are lying to you again. There is a large amount of confirmation of natural selection. The fact that you have ignored the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. For example, did your source refer you to Modiano (2001)? That is just one example of natural selection, showing the HbC mutation is superior to the HbS mutation, and has replaced it in parts of West Africa.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you?
Both malaria and sickle cell are detrimental. What is missing from your post? The malaria deaths occur mostly in undeveloped countries, especially in the World Health Organization African region. Within the same region, the childhood mortality rate for SSD is 50%-90%. Unlike malaria which kills approx. 3000 daily, sickle cell patients live a life of continuous suffering. Most die in their 40’s. Unlike malaria being the cause of death, most sickle cell patients die from complications of sickle cell, such as organ failure, especially the kidneys, lungs, spleen, and brain. They die from heart failure, heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, liver failure, respiratory failure, and because of the high doses of opiates [which leads to addiction] drug overdose. I met people who suffered through malaria and none wished they had sickle cell instead. You are basically arguing one cancer is better than another.
 
Top