Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dark Knight
Natural Selection is a crappy theory because:

Natural selection isn't a theory, it's a process.

They know mergers occur but have no way of accounting for them, especially in the fossil record.

Example of a merger with no accounting?

They use changeable definition for their terms, like the basic term "species".

It's not our fault that in reality the division between the properties of populations of life forms is sometimes so blurred that it's impossible to make exact specifications of terms.

They use evolution as a fact interchangeably with the Theories of Evolution, obfuscating their own arguments and then blaming others for their own poor arguments.

This is a semantic argument. I agree that sometimes people are ambiguous when saying that "evolution is a fact" by not clarifying that they're referring to the specific event called "evolution" and not the theory, but this in no way weaknes the theory of evolution or natural selection.

NS has been around for a LONG TIME. They have FEW practical applications compared with other theories that have around a LONG TIME.

1) Natural Selection is not a "theory", it is a process.

2) Natural selection does have useful application in the biotech industry.

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

Which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claim that ID is responsible for life or the universe itself. Gravity exists, but that's not evidence that gravity is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
63 posted on 08/29/2005 11:58:11 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio

2) Natural selection does have useful application in the biotech industry. <<

Yes, NS does have some useful applications in biotech, as we are intelligently designing things.

>>Natural selection isn't a theory, it's a process.<<

So Darwin didn't assert NS as the mechanism for his theory of evolution?

Crappy terminology, crappy logic, and crappy science.

Evolutionists do this all the time. When in doubt obfuscate, change the meaning of words, and overstate the usefulness of a ToE. If this wasn't done, Creationists or IDers would not have a chance.

And I am not a creationist. Go figure.

DK


64 posted on 08/29/2005 1:58:05 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson