No, I've seen the evidence and understand how the process works. You're trying to misrepresent natural selection and that doesn't fly. Sorry.
Nature does not select -- nature RESPONDS to the environment.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You seem to have got the rudiments of evolution under your belt: species evolve in response to environmental pressures in order to fit specific niches. And no, it isn't a process directed by an intelligence. That's what I'm saying and it also seems to be what you're saying, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
A bacteria desires to reproduce?
A bacteria doesn't desire anything. A bacteria simply reproduces. Bacteria that don't reproduce don't pass on their genetic information to subsequent generations. In that sense, natural selection favors genes that help bacteria survive and reproduce. But it isn't a question of volition in any direct sense.
But, see with the dogma of darwinism, one doesn't have too -- all one has to do is blindly accept this.
Huh? Who says a bacterium wants to do anything? What are you talking about? When I said passing on genes was the "desired end," I wasn't speaking literally. That's just what natural selection does -- it dictates that the most fit genotypes survive and that the trend is therefore towards increasing fitness within a given environment.
But the reason changes with the words used. nature does not select squat -- it merely reacts to forces. But that thought is an anathama to the faith of Darwinism.
Again I have no idea what you're talking about. Who says "nature" is a conscious selector? Either you're not expressing yourself coherently or you don't know what you're talking about.
>> When I said passing on genes was the "desired end," I wasn't speaking literally.
Then maybe you should change the words you use, because they can only be taken literally.
>>That's just what natural selection does -- it dictates
No, natural selection is an oxymoron.. Nature selects nothing, nor does it dictate in the propers sense of the word.
>Again I have no idea what you're talking about. Who says "nature" is a conscious selector?
Your words do. "Natural Selection" literally means a selection, which requires volition, is made naturally. You don't have an idea because you refuse to look outside the box of Darwinism.
The proper words are more likely to be "effects of the forces of nature on life" rather than "natural selection". There is no small difference. "Effects of nature" describes how nature, pressures, etc, effect life. "Natural Selection" describes how evolution determines the end results. If you think this is a small difference, you aren't grounded in reality. But that's ok, many darwinists aren't.
>>Either you're not expressing yourself coherently or you don't know what you're talking about
Or you are willfully ignorant and have a faith in the dogma of darwinism -- and a very closed mind.