What did Darwin Regret? An “enfeebled” moral and emotional character

I am afraid you are mistaken. The coat color of the mice is determined by the environment. Where the color of the sand is black, the color of the mouse is more likely to be black. Where the color of the sand is tan, the color of the mouse is more likely to be tan. Predation is a constant, the color of the sand is the variable, so the color of the sand causes the color of the mouse to change.

“The close match between the color of the mice and the color of the substrate on which they live is thought to be an adaptation against predation” PNAS -29 Apr 03

The quote from the article confirms that the the issue is adaption, NOT conflict or survival of the fittest.

The reason that some bacteria thrived and squeezed out the others is because a particular change enabled them to digest citrate as I said. This is not the result of competition. This is the result of adaption.

I was wrong about winners and losers, because I was thinking that this was sexual reproduction that commonly spreads adaptions through the species, instead of asexual reproduction where this cannot happen.

I admitted that I made a mistake concerning winning and losing in this case. Please admit you were wrong about competition /survival of the fittest.

First, and most important I have never claimed that natural selection is wrong. Again you are making a completely unfounded claim and I would be more polite in my response, but I warned you before about this kind of thing. You need to listen and learn.

On the contrary I have always said, and you can check this out very easily by reviewing the archives at BioLogos, that natural selection is very important, but the Darwinian mechanism for natural selection, survival of the fittest is badly flawed, and is not supported by scientific evidence.

Blockquote

“The point being that the e. coli evolved not by chance, but in a manner consistent with adaption to the environment and there was no competition.”

This is an argument against survival of the fittest and not against natural selection.

I can read, and I suggest you do more reading. What does writing do except reveal to others what you are thinking. Are you suggesting that Dawkins doesn’t believe what he writes?

It is either that I don’t understand evolution so I am making all these wild claims, which I am not, or I do understand what evolution is all about so you and your allies need to make all these ad hominem arguments to “prove” that I cannot know what I am talking about.

You have made the discussion personal, which means you take my scientific understanding as an attack on yourself and those practice science, which it is not. Live your faith that science is an objective activity.

God is not disproved by Dawkins et al because they are mistaken, bot does that mean that if there really was no God that humans could not know this?. My faith is not based on the nature of natural selection, but my faith is also not held in a vacuum. If faith is not tested and passes the test, then it is useless. Just so science must be tested and if it fails the test, it is wrong. It is my observation that Survival of the fittest has not passed the test of science so it is wrong.

And what is/n’t symbiosis again?

“either that I don’t understand evolution so I am making all these wild claims, which I am not, or I do understand what evolution is all about so you and your allies need to make all these ad hominem arguments to “prove” that I cannot know what I am talking about.”

It looks like the former, that you don’t understand natural science and indeed are making wild, unsubstantiated, “merely philosophical” claims.

Do you consider the possibility that your lack of scientific training holds you back in any way from understanding this topic, Roger? If you simply think you know better than scientists who DO have training, and continually won’t listen to their patient corrections of your views, sooner or later, people get tired with people who refuse to listen. You can refuse the “ad hominems” by stating your training in ecology and natural science; otherwise people have every right to refuse to believe what you are saying about “evolution”, and most likely should.

So, what are your “ecology” qualifications, Roger? If you don’t have ANY, it doesn’t look good. If you have merely a thin veneer of training in biology or ecology, done online or only through books without experience doing science, again, it doesn’t look good. But you can make it “look better”, indeed, if your training is actually better than it appears from what you write about “ecology” here.

Is it other peoples’ fault that you keep pretending to have found a brilliant “scientific” solution, as a non-scientist, yet which other people have already long explored and elaborated better and more clearly than you are doing now? The Dawkins fetish doesn’t wear well, as if you would entertain shadows instead of turning towards the Sun.

Look Roger, you seem like a nice guy, and I am sure you mean well and are committed to your faith. I
respect that. However, you need to listen to what myself and others are saying. It is very obvious to us that this is just your opinion formed from a need to redefine natural selection to conform to your biblical interpretation of God’s plan and God’s nature. Natural selection as evinced by science is objectionable to you so you have tried to make an argument to redefine it. What you have done though is simply declared science and scientists wrong, yet you provided zero, I repeat zero evidence or argument to support your assertions.

Your response to my writing is also either a result of not understanding what I have said or evading it.
I say one last time Roger: What is your evidence for your claim about Natural Selection, and how do you show that all the evidence of the scientific establishment is wrong? And, where are your peer-reviewed publications? However, I know you are not going to provide this. I have asked several times now.

So, I am going to leave it at that Roger. I don’t want to continually dismantle you in front of your community. I did not come here to bring people down. I just feel that it is important to call out pseudo-science when I see it. I have done that now and so no need to continue.

Best wishes.

2 Likes

Thank you for your response. It is to bad that youdonotspendsometimeonBioLogosbecausethenrouwouldknoethatyouaredead wrong. I am not a nice guy.

Natural Selection has been controversial for some time. Karl Popper, eminent philosopher of science, said that scientific thinking must be falsifiable to be valid. This means that it must be provable by experiment. Survival of the fittest was not provable or falsifiable because “the fittest” was never defined in a way that the theory could be experimentally be demonstrated. The theory does not say how an allele or species becomes fit or unfit so it cannot be verified.

For instance every teenager knows that the dinosaurs want extinct because of climate change, which caused their food to die out before they were able to adapt. Mammals were also stressed, but were better able to adapt, so they survived and flourished. The evolution of the mammals had little to do with survival of the fittest and every thing to do with adaption to the environment.

He did alter his position when he learned that bacteria developed resistance to the anti-biotic penicillin, after mutations changed their structure so that they were no longer vulnerable to the drug. In other words bacteria can change or evolve in the face of a hostile environment to avoid the effects of medications like penicillin. We can see this so we know that at least some evolution is caused by environmental change.

This kind of Natural Selection, which I call ecological selection because it is based on the science of ecology which has replaced evolution in the forefront of biological research, is based on the ability to adapt to its environmental niche.

This understanding of evolution has also found support in a peer reviewed paper published in Biology Notes of the Royal Society.

Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land

Sarda Sahney

,

Michael J. Benton

and

Paul A. Ferry

Published:27 January 2010https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024

Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A. (2010),

The Abstract concludes by saying, "

Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes. Global taxonomic and ecological diversity of this group correlates closely with the dominant classes of tetrapods (amphibians in the Palaeozoic, reptiles in the Mesozoic, birds and mammals in the Cenozoic). **These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.**Emphasis added.

The research indicates that evolutionary change is driven by ecological adaption, symbiosis, not survival of the fittest If you have contrary evidence, please submit it.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.