Correcting Science Teacher Kevin R. McCarthy's, AKA OgreMKV, "Explanation" of Natural Selection
-
EvoTards love to rewrite history. Case in point "natural selection". There were published articles in the early 19th century that discussed the exact concept that Darwin called "natural selection" (On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Darwin may have coined the term but he did not "invent" the concept.
And even in Darwin's day there was an uneasiness about the term because they knew that nature does not select. Darwin was trying to compare this concept to artificial selection/ animal husbandry, so "natural selection", although wrong and misleading, was what he came up with. And that is also why the term "survival of the fittest" was coined, as a replacement.
But anyway, what is it- what is this concept, what does it consist of?
Differential reproduction means that some will out-reproduce others. For natural selection that differential reproduction has to be due to heritable variation. So it really isn't as simple as saying some will out-reproduce others, therefor natural selection.
What does Kevin McCarthy say:
Does Kevin understand that fitness is linked to reproductive success? Obviously not. Such is the life of an ignorant science teacher.
Then Kevin asks:
No one knows, Kevin. Not even you. And that is because no one has demonstrated changes in genomes can account for the diversity we observe. There isn't anything in genetics that supports the claim.
Genes influence traits. Blue eyes are a trait. Being human is not a trait that can be linked to any genome.
So here we have a science teacher spewing unscientific garbage and feeding it to his students.
Now I understand the problem with Texas and education.
EvoTards love to rewrite history. Case in point "natural selection". There were published articles in the early 19th century that discussed the exact concept that Darwin called "natural selection" (On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Darwin may have coined the term but he did not "invent" the concept.
And even in Darwin's day there was an uneasiness about the term because they knew that nature does not select. Darwin was trying to compare this concept to artificial selection/ animal husbandry, so "natural selection", although wrong and misleading, was what he came up with. And that is also why the term "survival of the fittest" was coined, as a replacement.
But anyway, what is it- what is this concept, what does it consist of?
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
Differential reproduction means that some will out-reproduce others. For natural selection that differential reproduction has to be due to heritable variation. So it really isn't as simple as saying some will out-reproduce others, therefor natural selection.
What does Kevin McCarthy say:
In the simplest terms, natural selection says that organisms that are more for fit for their environment tend to preferentially survive and pass their traits to their offspring.
Does Kevin understand that fitness is linked to reproductive success? Obviously not. Such is the life of an ignorant science teacher.
Then Kevin asks:
But how can simple changes in the gene pool, which are usually changes in the percentage of each allele, result in the massive diversity around us?
No one knows, Kevin. Not even you. And that is because no one has demonstrated changes in genomes can account for the diversity we observe. There isn't anything in genetics that supports the claim.
Genes influence traits. Blue eyes are a trait. Being human is not a trait that can be linked to any genome.
So here we have a science teacher spewing unscientific garbage and feeding it to his students.
Now I understand the problem with Texas and education.
posted by Joe G @ 8:22 AM
6 Comments:
At 12:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Just posted at Kevin's (it won't appear until/ if it is approved):
Well the fact that nature would eliminate the diversity of dogs- that is if dogs were left to themselves- supports what I said.
As for evolution being the designer, what does that even mean? What type of evolution- Intelligent Design Evolution? Yup that could be the designer. Front-loaded evolution- another possiblity. But there isn't any evidence supporting the claim that blind, undirected processes can design anything.
As for the termites- as I said they are designing agencies and fit the ID definition of intelligence.
It is strange how he ignores what I say and then prattles on as if I never said it.
At 5:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Well Kevin posted it but he is ignorant of the feral dog thing. Strange as that was taught in biology class when I went to school.
So here is round 2:
Well the fact that nature would eliminate the diversity of dogs- that is if dogs were left to themselves- supports what I said.
Blatant assertion.
Actually it is a fact and taught in biology classes. It was even on National Geographics “Life After People” . Gee Ogre dogs will just start making it with whatever other dog is around. They don’t care about “breed”.
See the wikipedia article on the show Aftermath: Population Zero
Up until now I didn’t know anyone doubted it. Yet here you are.
If we can show that design can arise by non-intelligent means (and we have), then you can’t know if the designer was intelligent or not.
What design has been shown to arise by non-intelligent means?
Yes, you did say that as ID defines the term, termites are intelligent. So, if termintes can design, then what else can design?
What does that have to do with anything?
Frontloading is about the funniest thing I’ve ever heard of.
Your position is the funniest.
Just take a look at Lenski’s work
I have. It pretty much kills your theory as it demonstrates serious limitations.
What a lame duck Kevin has turned out to be. His ignorance on the dogs is shameful. Why no one from AtBC corrected him says quite a bit about their mentality.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
I am getting published:
round 3- Kevin finally admits he was wrong about dogs!
Termites are designing agencies. That is just a fact.
And again what examples of non-intelligent design do you have?
Lenski demonstrated exactly what Creationists have been claiming- YECs! And he isn’t the first to observe citrate digestion. Also it just “evolved” a way of egtting the citrate inside. The digestion machinery was there already.
What you don’t understand is “evolution” is not being debated. My guess is you have some fixation on ID and Creation claiming no changes happens at all.
As for the dogs, well it changes everything. It shoots your diversity example all to hell.
And again we can tell the difference betweem something that was designed and something that nature, operating freely, can produce. People make a living on doing just that.
Also even if ID didn’t exist you still couldn’t produce positive evidence for your position. Talk about useless…
At 7:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
And again we can tell the difference betweem something that was designed and something that nature, operating freely, can produce
Liar.
At 7:27 AM,
Joe G said…
And again we can tell the difference betweem something that was designed and something that nature, operating freely, can produce
OM:
Liar.
People do it on a daily basis you moron.
At 8:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Well it was bound to happen. After correcting Kevin on several points he has banned me!
Intellectual cowardice rules evolutionary "thinking".
Post a Comment
<< Home