My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_William Schryver]

TLD:

The matter of the discussion is evolution as a tautology ...

No. To be precise, the discussion is the notion of "natural selection" (once popularly expressed as "survival of the fittest") as a tautology. I've never once suggested that "evolution is a tautology." I'm only arguing, from a purely logical and philosophical standpoint, that it is quite ridiculous to argue against the conclusion that: those are selected who best reproduce, or stated in the inverse, those who reproduce best are selected. Delusion Boy hasn't done it on this thread. Neither have you. I'm quite confident that no one can.

Some would say opposition to evolution is a classic Mormon trait ...

I'm haven't been arguing against evolution, per se. That's your mistake, and it is incident to your chronic inability to view things from a macro perspective. I accept "evolution" (subject to certain definition of terms) within specific parameters. I've never argued otherwise in any venue. I have, however, and will continue to dispute the evidence for "natural selection" as the dominant mechanism (or even necessarily a mechanism) of evolution. I consider it logically absurd, and entirely unproven.

That said, when it comes to my acceptance of "evolution," I've consistently qualified my arguments by noting that (and this is spoken with some degree of authority, inasmuch as I've been programming computers for over a quarter century) the double-helix is, in my judgment, quite obviously a sophisticated EPROM* whose intelligent design permits the reception of instruction sets, and which can even adapt/instruct itself within certain limits.

You are a classic example of ignorance and dogmatism, that's all I meant.

What a coincidence! That's exactly what I've meant, too.
.
.
.
* = see also PROM and EEPROM for examples of this type of technology, of which the double-helix is simply a much more sophisticated variant.

[_The Dude]

I'm only arguing, from a purely logical and philosophical standpoint, that it is quite ridiculous to argue against the conclusion that: those are selected who best reproduce, or stated in the inverse, those who reproduce best are selected. Delusion Boy hasn't done it on this thread. Neither have you. I'm quite confident that no one can.

"Those who reproduce best are selected." I'm not arguing against that either.

I have, however, and will continue to dispute the evidence for "natural selection" as the dominant mechanism (or even necessarily a mechanism) of evolution. I consider it logically absurd, and entirely unproven.

Believing it is unproven is one thing, like believing it is insufficient for evolution. But believing it is logically absurd as a mechanism is quite another thing which I have yet to see.

Where is your best argument that it is logically absurd? "Those who reproduce best are selected" is a necessary component of evolution, and since we agree that it cannot logically be argued against, I don't see your argument anywhere.

That said, when it comes to my acceptance of "evolution," I've consistently qualified my arguments by noting that (and this is spoken with some degree of authority, inasmuch as I've been programming computers for over a quarter century) the double-helix is, in my judgment, quite obviously a sophisticated EPROM* whose intelligent design permits the reception of instruction sets, and which can even adapt/instruct itself within certain limits.

Sounds like a different issue to me. Lets stick to your argument that natural selection is logically absurd as a mechanism for evolution.

Your argument is _________?

[_William Schryver]

"Those who reproduce best are selected." I'm not arguing against that either.

I knew you would come around in time.

That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Lets (sic) stick to your argument that natural selection is logically absurd as a mechanism for evolution.

No, let's see you describe "natural selection" such that it becomes something more than "those who reproduce best are selected."

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I am only getting more and more fascinated by this subject. It seems to be holding true that this thing is solid. No traditional Mormon, or even an internet Mormon has been able to address this. I have a favor to ask. Since I have been excommunicated from The MAD-house, would someone post the OP as their own? You don't have to defend it, but I am dying to see a Mopo take this on.

Anyone?

[_Sethbag]

Genes, whose phenotypic expressions enable the possessor of those genes better to pass those genes on to the next generation, will (statistically) increase in the local gene pool, in relation to versions of those genes less able to get themselves passed on to the next generation. Throw in occasional mutations, and that's essentially it in a nutshell. This is the "selfish gene" Dawkins wrote about.

Do you find this illogical Will? Was Dawkins just blowing smoke up our arses when he wrote that, and were all his readers delusional when they understood what he meant, and it all made good sense?

[_Some Schmo]

I'm only arguing, from a purely logical and philosophical standpoint, that it is quite ridiculous to argue against the conclusion that: those are selected who best reproduce, or stated in the inverse, those who reproduce best are selected.

What you seem to fail to understand (are are intentionally ignoring - the former is more likely given your history) is that natural selection is not about how good a species is at reproducing. It's about having the physical traits to survive long enough to do so. Millions of species that were "good at reproducing" have gone extinct simply because they were naturally selected out of existence, likely because of environmental changes (changes in food supply, food location, temperature, migration of other species, natural disasters, etc etc).

I think dinosaurs were pretty good at reproducing.

NOTE: I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I realize your mind is so closed, you might as well be dead (which is why "brain-dead" is such an apt descriptor for you). I'm just pointing it out because it entertains me.

[_beastie]

No, let's see you describe "natural selection" such that it becomes something more than "those who reproduce best are selected."

He's already done that, and so has EA, and, If I recall correctly, others as well.

I'm really left scratching my head that you don't seem able to grasp their explanations.

[_The Dude]

"Those who reproduce best are selected." I'm not arguing against that either.

I knew you would come around in time.

That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Let's stick to your argument that natural selection is logically absurd as a mechanism for evolution.

No, let's see you describe "natural selection" such that it becomes something more than "those who reproduce best are selected."

1. Natural variation occurs among the individuals in a population (for DNA this is due to mutation).
2. Some differences affect survival of a particular individual.
3. Individuals that have better odds of survival have better odds of reproducing.
4. If the trait that gives better odds of survival and reproduction is heritable, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of individuals in the next generation with that trait.

Over repeated cycles, the natural environment selects for heritable traits that confer survival and reproductive advantages, causing evolution of the population.

That wasn't so hard.

Now, your claim is that natural selection is logically absurd as a mechanism for evolution. Not that it is unproven or insufficient, but logically absurd.

Let's hear what you've got.

[_William Schryver]

Millions of species that were "good at reproducing" have gone extinct simply because they were naturally selected out of existence, likely because of environmental changes (changes in food supply, food location, temperature, migration of other species, natural disasters, etc etc).

Is it really possible that you can write the above and yet not see how you have just served to support/substantiate my entire argument?

The Schmo has now consented that “natural selection” is, much more often than not, dependent on external forces/factors. The Schmo lists: “…environmental changes (changes in food supply, food location, temperature, migration of other species, natural disasters, etc etc”. And I agree that all of those things are valid factors.

Now your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstate how “natural selection” is able to produce such results absent the influence of external factors—through random mutations or whatnot.
.
.
.
beastlie:

He's already done that, and so has EA, and, If I recall correctly, others as well.

I'm really left scratching my head that you don't seem able to grasp their explanations.

You’re in completely over your head here, baby. You don’t have a freaking clue what is even going on. You’re just here for what you believe is a circle-jerk pile on, with me as the target.

But if you’d like to attempt to disprove my assessment, feel free to restate, or even directly quote, those instances where anyone has demonstrated that "natural selection" (absent the influence of external forces, such as described above) amounts to anything more than "those who reproduce best are selected." I’m quite confident you cannot do it. The best you can hope for is to play cheerleader for someone else who might try. So grab your pompoms, beastlie baby, and cheer on your boys.

I am convinced that no single group of humans can be more wilfully blind and dogmatic than is the overwhelmingly majority of LDS apostates. Fortunately, catastrophic events, such as the one presumed to have deselected the dinosaurs, can forcibly bring reproduction to an end. That’s what will happen to apostates at the second coming. And, believe me, deselection will never have come more deserved.

[_Sethbag]

Chauvinism is a classic example of the type of men Mormonism breeds?

Hmm, actually, I'd have to agree with that one.

Will, I'd really like to see you address Duderino's latest post. What, exactly, is illogical about it?

Yes, natural disasters deselect species unable to cope with either the immediate conditions caused by the disaster, or else changed ecological conditions to which the species are not adapted. This is certainly true. How that is supposed to obviate natural selection of genetic mutations I am not seeing. Perhaps you could condescend to explain that one to us all a little more in-depth.

What, exactly, is wrong with the idea that genetic mutations that help the survival to successful reproduction of the individuals who bear those mutations, repeated over many generations, leads to a change in the gene pool reflecting a higher incidence of these beneficial mutations? And what is illogical, or absurd, about the idea that over sufficiently many generations, such selection can lead to material change in the species represented by that gene pool?

You really have us scratching our heads here, because this evolutionary mechanism is actually such a simple concept. This is so insanely simple that we're really having a hard time comprehending what can possibly be your objection to it.

ps: Will is a classic example alright. A classic example of an otherwise very capable brain under the influence of the virus of religion.