ok, but you have your link to the nylon bug, so whats the problem. i will cite author and book eevn though i have done several times in earlier posts. Now that i have dealt with your belovded nylon bug, can i go away now and construct the answers to all the other links and posts which need to be anwered. i wll cite a source for each answer i provide.

im off now, its been emotional in the words of Vinne Jones. But i will be back in the words of arnie, with all the anwers. My request to all you would be, dont post any further questions, until i have responded to the others, today i have got side tracked by moths and nylon bugs and natural selection. However, i am trying to be fair and anwser everyone, which i promise will do. Until the seasonal greetings to you all.

by the way capeo i think you need to read this with the rest of your friends and try to undrestand it

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927


it seems to me that your the one who copys and paste's without understanding what he is doing

LOL..... have good xmas capeo. speak to you soon.

you are using the link i showed you to argue that the moth sh** as you put it it flawed. This shows you do not read and understand information that is presented to you but instead as some have asserted flick through for thingd to pounce on. here you pounced on....



without fully reading on context that...




source

The article shows how such things are pounced upon in an attempt to discredit natural selection, but that in fact it did not discredit it at all. yet from reading it you go on to state repeatedly how the experiement is flawed as evidence for your case. flaws in the origonal study do not invalidate further studies nor does it detract from other examples. You clearly did not fully understand the point being made. Now take some of the far more complex artcles you have refused to credit as evidence. You managed to misrepresent and misunderstand this single short itemn. This to me strikes at the heart of why people are getting frustrated and why you feel they have refuted nothing. You are reading things and seeing what you want to see.

Check your post history for examples, it's not up to me to show you where you're doing this; it should be clear enough looking at your own posts and in particular those that have been edited that you are both copying far too much material and not providing adequate sources. Copying the author's source notes from the bottom of an article doesn't sufficiently cover citing the source of the article itself. Please see my PM for more details.

I think we're going to need to see an improvement in the state of this thread overall in order to justify leaving it open for much longer, H8 Me you'll need to provide a more convincing argument than simply stating that everyone else's arguments are "dim witted", "pointless gibberish" - please provide counter arguements and address the points being made if you'd like to offer a rebutal to what has been said.

Thank you.

It would appear the weakest aspect of the "beneficial mutation as the engine of evolution" argument is the inability of mutation to propagate beyond the generation having the mutation....

H8 ME,

I'm wounded to my very core...honestly!

Let me guess it aint you or me.......im right aint i.



Tipsy.....i was just about to leave until you brought the moths up again. let me put it this, way, evolutionist have used the indutrial melanism for ages, even while accepting that its was entirely flawed. To claim that a natural occurence, where on specie out number a nother one, due to certain circumstance as evolution is foolish, the brown moth adapted to his changing surrounding, but the white one could not, it was not the right colour, so why ws there no processes taking place, since that moth was under pressure, or even with the brown moth, no new changes etc. This is adapting, like an eskimo killing animal for fur to survive and adapt, the surroudnign happen to benefit the brown moths instead what used to be the case, before, when the white moths ws protected due to trees being a lighter, colour. The fact the scientisits carried on using the flawed experiment as evidence shows they will try and justify their imaginary mechanisms at all costs.

Now you claim im reading things and see what i wanna see, well i can apply this to you all pretty easily too. The point is this, the conclusion of it all, even those revisting the experiment ws the same as before, meaning they did not find anything new or to the contrary, instead the same results, no micro or macro evolution, which should have surely impacted in the white moth most of all since its was under immense pressure.


Tipsy im off now, speak to you soon or when i come back with all my answers

I replied to you privately and accept what you said about ref. anyway i thing H8 me can express himself how he likes, they attcked him straight away after his post, taking the mick out of his english, when its not right to do so, and personally attack him. All he said is that their dim witts, and i agree some people here are. I suggest Saruman, that you apply this post to other who attack him too. About me i dont care when poeple attack me pesronaly, i shows that i have one over them. But this again is showing me that your one sided, either get involved in the debate or be just.

That very much depends on when and where the mutation takes place in the organism. I don't think anyone would disagree that a mutation that did not affect the germ plasm of a sexual organism would not be hereditable (radiation damage to non-reproductive cells for example), however if the mutation took place in the germ plasm or upon conception in sexual reproduction, or generally in the case of asexual reproduction, and the mutation provided an advantage for the organisms reproductive success in its environment then heredity should be observed.

So the mechanims would have to time the mutation accurately too. Lol.

I have learned a lot from this debate actually, and altho I'm still of no decided opinion either way myself, I think the "jury is still out" scientifically.

Leonardo said that evolution is

And yet the whole theory of evolution contended by Darwin, was that all creatures developed from the same origins which is quite a bit removed from a change in allele frequencies. It seems to me that it would have taken longer than the earth has supposedly existed, for a human to develop from an ameoba.

There's no doubt that species are equipped to adapt to the environment, but it appears to me that they already come so equipped and does not indicate an evolutionary change into something else such as Darwin propounded.

It seems that there are scientific arguments for both sides made by qualified persons, so it basically still remains a matter of "which side you're on" as to each person's opinion.

i think you expressed that point well, most creatures are equipped before hand to adapt to changes etc, this is not evolution and its not what it claims aswell at its root. Common descent can easly be refuted and has been but ignored, similarities in genes or protien make up from one specie to another is no t proof evolution as shown before too. But i think ultimately, specie are equipped to adapt to envirments and changes, this not evolution.

Nope.

I've been writing software that uses Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming techniques for several years.

Last year, my software won a Microsoft EMEA RAD award.

Strangely enough, I do have some idea what Information is.

honestl i would if i thought it would make a diffrence but like i said like hitting my head against abrick wall. OZI posts relevent info on all you Q's yet all you ay is its alreary been refuted...NEXT, oh thats been rfuted also NEXT and do on and so forth....so i ask y? y should i post anything apart from my opinion whe thats all most people do....?

I think we both know that "H8 me" is only in this thread as a show of support for you, browsing his past posts it's obvious he knows you. His posts in this thread contribute nothing to the topic and consist only of attacks and derrogatory comments towards those who are opposing your argument. He hasn't actually addressed or provided any arguments against even a single point anyone has raised concerning evolution and has simply universally condemned everyone else's contributions as 'gibberish nonsense' without giving any reason why.

Because if your "opinion" consists of derrogatory and offensive remarks about other forum members then you are violating the forum terms of service you read and agreed to when you registered on this site.

Members are required to conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner, not join a thread just to attack and condemn everyone else in an effort to support someone you know.

yeh so do i, its not matter, it has no physical reality, thts info. you dont have to be like you to know that, the dna is what carries the information, but the latter is not a pyshical entity.


Saruman, what you say about H8 Me can be applied to many other who have left post of support etc. This is no reason not be just. My point is,, his first post got personally attacked, not for the info within it but for his use of the language. You did not jump in then did you, you are increasingly showing your side, i suggest participate in the debate or be just across the board.

Thank you.

*sigh* You're a ****ing idiot; jesus christ.



Maybe you should get an education before calling others "numpties".



No, the entier moth species became under increased pressure because of the change in the environment.



No, see, evolution doesnt say that benificial mutations only happen when a species is under pressure. Quite simply, mutations happen. Period. There was a mutation in the species that caused a very select few individuals of moth to be black, rather than the white colour. The change in the environment caused this mutation to be beneficial to the individuals, therefore the individuals had a higher fitness, therefore more of them survived as opposed to the white moths, therefore the mutation was passed on to the next generations and more and more of the population had it. *This* is evolution. It is the appearance of a mutation which causes an increase of fitness, and thus spreading among the population until eventually (unless the enviornment changes again) virtually all the individuals in the population have this mutation. Your inability to grasp that, however, shows how badly you've already been corrupted.



*sigh* Because Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it is not evolution itsself. In reference to evolution, it is natural selection which determines which mutations survive and thus spread in the population. Strictly speaking, its not natural selection that causes the appearance of a new species at all. When it comes down to it, its mutations that do this. It is simply through natural selection that the other mutations dont survive, thus dont spread in the gene pool, thus creating a larger and larger genetic diversity between the newly appearing species and the individuals of the species which did not posess this mutation (which may very well become extinct eventually due to natural selection).

shoot the moths...the black peppered ones..all of them and end this debate!

Sigh... you f**ing numtie, even the evolutionist claimed the experiment was flawed , so how can you then justify it. and th brown moths did not mutate, it was always like that, like black people have always been black and white have always been white. no mutations you ****in idiot. Diversity is not evolution, they are the same specie, but different colours, the brown moth was not quicker faster, or stronger, you dick, it survived czo the surrounding now benefited it, and no longer the white moths. I cant understand why we keep coming back to this. You d*** ****, the scientists said, that the experiment was flawed, so how did you make it better. d*** ****.

All right that's enough, there's no excuse for that language.

Clearly civil and objective debate is not going to happen here. Thread closed.