Galaxy Riddle

Originally posted by humy
Saying that natural selection can select for some treat that does not favor individual survival does NOT imply the ridiculously simplistic and erroneous assertion that "natural selection refers to changes within species like size, color, and the like.". Therefore, I am clearly not "admitting" to any such thing.
You said that natural selection is about "surviva ...[text shortened]... ere is no mention of "the survival of the fittest" there and that slogan is not implied.

It was the early evilutionist that made the claim of "survival of the fittest" and not me. And I even quoted references to some that later said otherwise. I was just bringing and argument used against evilution based on that claim for those that still hold to it.

So if you are not admitting that "natural selection" just refers to variations within species or kinds then what evidence can you show me that proves that one kind of creature changes to another kind of creature by the process of natural selection.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was the early evilutionist that made the claim of "survival of the fittest" and not me. And I even quoted references to some that later said otherwise. I was just bringing and argument used against evilution based on that claim for those that still hold to it.

So if you are not admitting that "natural selection" just refers to variations within speci ...[text shortened]... e changes to another kind of creature by the process of natural selection.

The Instructor

Yeah, those last few remaining holdouts that still believe in evolution. What a joke.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was the early evilutionist that made the claim of "survival of the fittest" and not me. And I even quoted references to some that later said otherwise. I was just bringing and argument used against evilution based on that claim for those that still hold to it.

So if you are not admitting that "natural selection" just refers to variations within speci ...[text shortened]... e changes to another kind of creature by the process of natural selection.

The Instructor

It was the early evilutionist that made the claim of "survival of the fittest" and not me.

Darwin didn't say "survival of the fittest" and, actually, back then, just a little later, it was mostly the Christian Nazis plus those with similar strong right-wing sympathies that mainly said "survival of the fittest" and NOT most of the scientists that understood the theory. These are just the trivial undisputed historical facts.

I was just bringing and argument used against evilution based on that claim for those that still hold to it.

Why? WE scientists generally don't hold it! And neither does anyone that understands the theory.
I would guess that it would be very rare for a modern-day atheist to claim that natural selection is just about "survival of the fittest" as that is just totally stupid. I certainly don't know of a single example of such an atheist so if you have an issue with this extremely rare minority, take it up with them and not us! WE don't make such a ridiculous claim.
I would guess it would be mainly morons like the more right-wing extremist Christians (but not, in the main, the moderate Christians) that might claim that but not rational people like us.

So if you are not admitting that "natural selection" just refers to variations within species or kinds then what evidence can you show me that proves that one kind of creature changes to another kind of creature by the process of natural selection.

I have already comprehensibly and repeatedly shown you a large part of that evidence which you simply ignore.
I will not waste my time with you this way yet again.

Originally posted by humy

It was the early evilutionist that made the claim of "survival of the fittest" and not me.

Darwin didn't say "survival of the fittest" and, actually, back then, it was mostly the Christian Nazis plus those with similar strong right-wing sympathies that mainly said "survival of the fittest" and NOT most of the scientists that understood th you simply totally ignore.
You are not going to make me waste my time yet again.

No, I don't want to waste your time, but I did not see any hard evidence. All you present is based on assumptions from what I have been able to tell.

Not only does evilution contradict the Holy Bible that creatures reproduce after their own kind, but it does not make logical scientific sense. I provided 25 unrefuted reasons why. You have provide no reason why it makes sense. So I think my 25 trumps your 0.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I don't want to waste your time, but I did not see any hard evidence. All you present is based on assumptions from what I have been able to tell.

Not only does evilution contradict the Holy Bible that creatures reproduce after their own kind, but it does not make logical scientific sense. I provided 25 unrefuted reasons why. You have provide no reason why it makes sense. So I think my 25 trumps your 0.

The Instructor

... Not only does evolution contradict the Holy Bible ...

LOL. NOW you expose the REAL reason and the ONLY reason why you disagree with evolution.

Originally posted by humy

... Not only does evolution contradict the Holy Bible ...

LOL. NOW you expose the REAL reason and the ONLY reason why you disagree with evolution.

What a shocker.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What a shocker.

LOL. As if we didn't already know.