Creationists have no problem with sexual selection concepts while rejecting natural selection for the origin of biological life.
Sexual selection in fact would confirm YEC ideas on a fallen world desperately striving against decay in order to allow rime for God’s redemptive plan. Biology grasping at a marginal advantage to beat a dying/decay attrition. A arms race in survival.
Secxual selection claims are fine but once again are they accurate? Are they really done well by those who don’t do well in figuring out origins and living equations in biology? i think not!
i watch youtube videos , well done, on sundry creatures. Recently i saw ones on the Tasmanian devil and the hyaena. Surprising information but suggesting quickly clues.
Instead of a sexual selection going on in the episodes of creatures in mating I discovered instead the creatures always are striving/selecting to maintain the group/herd/nation in its strengh. So when selecting for mates its just a minor extra episode of what they do all the time. they just in sexual union continue to maintain the reasons for why their is strong.
Therefore its not a strange , instinct, desire to improve/maintain genes. its not that sophisticated. they just continue to aggressively desire strength in the whole group. they just do it in mating also. So its not a special thing but a continuum in a spectrum of maintaing the groups strength.
So I might say sexual selection doesn’t exist but only is a special case in a spectrum of staying strong.
This makes more sense, to me, then a segregated , special, drive for special mating designs.
So sexual selection explains the origin of biological life?
Does anyone understand Robert ?
graham2,
Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to Robert Byers for clearly stating what needed to be said. I’m particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
Does anyone not have him blocked?
Mock, ridicule, dodge, deflect. I’m sure it’s exactly what Elizabeth desires for the site.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them . . .”
Reminds me of materialism…
I presume a above average intellectual ability to understand processes in nature .
i propose a correction that taps into creationist corrections on wrong ideas in evolutiondom.
Just think. it does touch on sexual selection claims.
Show the reasoning is wrong or the data wrong!
I think it takes away ghost agendas in creatures and instead replaces it with simple motivations of creatures while indeed maintaing species health.
Rather then NATURAL SELECTION and SEXUAL SELECTION instead its just a continuum. Sexual selection is just another episode in the species maintaining its health.
If evolutionists or creationists got the confidence to address great issues in origins then why not in lesser issues?
In short I’m questioning here whether sexual selection is going on as a purpose.
Instead its just a special case of creatures in all ways maintaining the health of their group they are in.
A important difference.
It is also from creationist presumptions of doing a better job in origin issues.
Keep to the OP topic. Do you think there is any sense in what Robert Byers wrote?
Mung,
Why don’t you stop doing those things then?
This post is, in all respects, as competent as creationism.
Robert,
Will you be publishing the results of this work?
Now, see, real ID science/creationism begins with “I read the Bible,” not “I watchyoutube videos.”
Your methodology must improve.
Glen Davidson
Like petrushka’s comment?
I am just pointing out that materialists don’t have any place making fun of someone else.
Except ID doesn’t have anything top do with the Bible. If the Bible is shown to be oure BS ID wouldn’t be fazed but YEC would be eliminated
What about creatures on mondry, tuesdry, wednesdry, thursdry? 😮
Robert’s syntax reminds me of something that wasn’t so much deliberately typed out as it was herded together by a shepherd.
Robert
What, exactly, do you think sexual selection is, and how do you think it operates in the natural world?
ID is completely compatible with YEC or OEC,with an unknown designer and unknown capabilities one can only eliminated the logically impossible.
Materialists that can spell do
YEC and OEC are subsets of ID, and designers are usually capable of designing the things they design. Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation show us how to eliminate a designer- take away the requirement for one.
More likely “materialists who use spell check…”
A lower bar
That would not eliminate the possibility of a designer of uncertain abilities , just the requirement for one who does not use natural processes for design.
It would eliminate the need for any and all designers.
Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Read just about any quote on that site concerning intelligent design and you will see how much ID is saturated with goddiness.
The need not the possibility
What sexual selection is , as presented by researchers in using it for evolutionary biology is as follows.
Where creatures in picking mates have a agenda on which kind of mates.
Its not just anybody but has a purpose to the results of reproductive success.
Therefore the creatures hog all the females or the females select the males with physical attributes or show ability to do well in procuring this or that.
Therefore there is selection and many results in what is reproduced. It even controls , they say, the type of offspring. Its part of evolutionism.
I’m saying here this is not correct.Its a misunderstanding.
I say observation of creatures shows instead a whole group agenda to maintain the strength of the group or simply as individuals.
So when it comes to sexual union for offspring they are only doing what they do all the time.
They do not have a intellectual, or instinct, to select mates for reproductive success.
Instead they are only selecting mates to be strong. Yet this is what they are always doing. Especially demonstrated in groups, like Hyaenas and T-Devils etc etc.
They are always maintaing the strength of the group very deliberately.
So the whole process is reducable to a single simple equation of motivation.
Not motivation to breed well but to be well period. They just do it in mating also and is loudly obvious.
yet no instinct.opinion to get good kids.instead just having ordinary strong mates.
Its making it not sophisticated.
just a tribe agenda to stay strong. No sexual selection or rather no effective sexual selection is changing the creatures. just a wee bit over the edge when selecting to be strong.
Sexual selection has never made a difference in the evolution of biology. its an error.
TristanM,
Robert’s syntax is every bit as intelligent as his ideas.
Already predicted by The Simpsons:
“Spider-pig, spider-pig, does whatever spider-pig does”
Or pretty. As in the case of peacocks, and, I like to think, “hyaenas”.
Or good home builders
Hi! Thanks for the work you’re doing. We appreciate it, even if we’re too often mean.
(A message to the probably two women who take care of Byers)
Really- you want to play this game again? OK:
“The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
He goes on to say:
ID doesn’t say anything about worship- not who, not how not when not where.
Once you eliminate the need that is all you have to do. You don’t add unnecessary causes.
Only humans pick mates for beauty , above or below the neck. Animals nevdr do. This because we were created by God and our spouses were given for reasons of identity. Not mere reproduction.
We pick souls of the opposite identity. Animals don’t and so have no interest in identity and the beauty of same.
Creatures picking better homes is still just picking for strength.
Its just to show how strong the male mate is. yet the female will live in the males home. so its just another example of the group maintaining strength. its not sexual selection as a special thing. Although selection is going on. its not a purpose however. the purpose is staying strong together.
So Dembski says one thing to one audience and a different thing to another. Gee, why would he do that?
So Dembski says one thing to one audience and a different thing to another.Gee, why would he do that?
That’s Dembski. I still have Meyer and Wells. Behe and Minnich testified that ID doesn’t require the supernatural.
Creation is a subset of ID. And it relies on the Bible. But it is only a subset.
Yes, why would any human speak differently to different audiences.
If it’s to tell them contradictory things on the same subject, the answer is to lie through his teeth, obviously.
I wonder why you guys feel you need to take someone else’s word for what ID is all about. It should be easy enough to figure out the answer just by looking at the proposed explanations in ID theory… oh, wait…
Humans can make snow, therefore all snow is created by humans
That doesn’t follow.
It does from this:
Frankie: “Once you eliminate the need ( humans can make snow )that is all you have to do. You don’t add unnecessary causes.” natural causation of snow
Whoops! Someone cleaned up the thread.
Wrong again- we have eliminated the need for humans to make snow. You don’t add “natural”- that is there from the start.
In this case because he’s dishonest, apparently.
In this case because he’s dishonest, apparently.
If that is the case then all evolutionists are dishonest for the same reason. Nice own goal
Trying to dumb things down to the point where even you can understand them is not the same as making fundamentally contradictory statements to different audiences as Dembski has done.