You gave 3 examples of human selection and somehow thought that disproves natural selection and evolution. and proves god, which is dumb and points to a bad understanding. look, I am not saying you are ******** but I think you are forgetting that many animals also eat eachother and denying the point I wrote down means animals are constantly either increasing in population every generation or going extinct. I also told you to stop me when you didn't understand so maybe a bit more than "no" would help me understand just where you are not making the connection. @Baskitkase @DarkJello you guys want to pitch in on this?
Look, I am not a religious person, but I respect religion and people desiring or having faith. I have spent a significant part of my life studying various religions and believe that it can be very beneficial to people. I am not anti-religion from the outset. But I do get tired of one-sided discussions where only one side apparently needs to answer questions vigorously while the other side gets to practically make stuff up and then claim the other side is lacking logic... it's just not interesting to continue a discussion in this type of environment. If you want to explain to me why you think Creationism makes sense in your world view, I am happy to listen, but don't tell me my logic is faulty because I don't agree with your premise that "design exists, therefore God did it.' Here's an example of why it gets tiresome. I make this post: And then a bit later you say this to me: You are basically repeating what I just said in order to claim I don't know what I am saying.
Most are squishy. anyways newbie dipstick said "no" to point 2 which is pretty basic understanding of our world so he is either a troll or religion makes people really, really stupid.
You asked me a yes or no question. I simply answered your question. But yes, I can elaborate. New species are being created by biologists and in nature although not by natural selection. Floyd Zaiger, a noted biologist mind you, has created over 100 new species of fruit. Now, the logic should that, if these new resources are not being created, then yes, "only a percentage of any generation will survive." But they are being created to help existing generations to survive. So, no, your statement is not up to date on current understanding of evolutionary process. Natural selection slowly is being subjugated by human selection known as design.
You must be very dumb to use examples in culture to try and disprove mechanics in nature. You keep coming back to that same flaw in your argument. where you think humans exploiting understanding of nature means nature was created for that specific purpose. It was also not a yes or no question.
Again, you, like everyone here, have not even accepted the fact that design is interfering will natural processes. Why is that so hard for you to grip? Instead you call me dumb because you can't understand the argument. Floyd Zaiger, here I'll make it easier for you by providing a simple web site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Zaiger. He interfered with natural process. Can you agree with that?
No and to think that he did means you do not understand the difference between culture and nature. I am not saying he did not cultivate a new cultivar and a hybrid or two. I am not saying he did not use knowledge of plant fysiology and genetics to achieve that. I am saying that you have to be pretty small minded to think it proves there is a god and that all of nature is by the action of cultivation proven fake. strange how in your oponion everyone is stupid except you. Must be nice, being the 'chosen one' or you could be the one who is wrong, do you agree?
I'm not wrong. All I'm trying to get you observe is a simple statement that biologists are design new species by interfering with natural process. I gave you the example. So can you agree?
Yes you are. do you english often? also this is probably the dumbest thing I have EVER read... and I have read some dumb Bane Shift in my life yo. not with you. I'm going to sleep, laters.
You specifically asked for an explanation of natural selection: Your examples of human-created species are not the result of natural selection. Also, geressen was starting from the beginning of evolutionary theory. Of course point 2 of his list isn't up to date.
it is if uou apply it to animals in a natural competative enviroment as opposed to a farm ( agriCULTURE) but yes, I was going back to basics to Darwins original theory because that guy is clearly lying when he says he understands it.
The fact that humans interfere with natural process is not debatable nor an argument - it is simply a fact. What we have a problem is your leap from here to God/Creationism. Humans disrupt a lot of things - but the fact that it happens neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, nor does it say anything about whether God did X or Y. We can build dams to divert rivers, it doesn't mean rivers don't exist, or that God created rivers. We can build planes to defy gravity, it doesn't mean God created gravity or that he decides if a plane will fly.
No the fact humans interfere with natural selection means that design exists. It does not prove the existence of God, which is all I've been trying to prove at first.
... when there is artificial selection it stops being natural selection. why are you trying to prove this incredibly banal point no one questions? You have freedom to selfdeceive. Your body will rot and all that is you will die as the light inside your mind fades and is extinguished. no god will raise you to a heavenly paradise. but you are allowed to think that there is, that is fine.
The fact that architecture and tools exist prove that design by humans exists. but does not prove or neccesitate the existance of (a) god(s). I am ready for my nobel prize.
I'm bringing it up because you fail to see point through the facts. If design exists, then a designer also exists whether it be human or God. You say it fact, but you do not accept the source because you say that there is no God. Of course, it doesn't to you. Why should He exist in your world even though He gave you life? It is the typical evolutionary argument. Take God out of the picture, claim reason, develop a godless concept, back it up with sourceless evidence, and call it life. Of course, I can't help you see it that, where there is design, a designer exists.
