News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

This is an interesting find.








Credit goes to an OEC on another forum for spotting this one.

I think their analysis understates the problem. They're focusing narrowly on a couple of statistical issues they know they can demonstrate lead to bad results; but they ignore the root cause of error here: the assumptions that beneficial mutations actually occur, and "selection" occurs.

And the folks involved are career-conscious, it seems. (Adding bold) These words are not consistent with the words of someone who believes "overturning evolution would win you a Nobel Prize".


Even so, we can expect opposition to any step in the direction of truth. Or even more likely, it'll just be ignored and "business as usual" will continue.

If "selection" doesn't occur then how could they have done their experiment?

They couldn't possibly have...

Or
As stated in the article. In order to do the comparison, beneficial mutations must have been identified and selection must have occurred.
Since you have declared that neither beneficial mutation nor "selection" occur, the experiments done by Yokoyama must be bogus according to you.


I don't see how you can determine that these experiments are a threat to the theory of evolution. Obviously, their dependence upon the false(according to you) assumption of the existence of beneficial mutations and "selection" show them to be just as likely to lie (or just as stupid) as the biologists who used the statistical methods that were found to be erroneous.

By your own set of assumptions, the findings of Yokoyama and company must be declared invalid.

You focus on interpretation rather than actual evidence.

Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern.

Equivocation is such a weak strategy...

Yes. I am focusing on your interpretation of the implications of the research and experiments they did. Their take on it is that the statistical analysis done by mainstream biology does not accurately predict the sites of natural selection. Since their experiments do accurately identify the sites of natural selection, I don't see how you can say this research is an invalidation of the theory of evolution. What is it in the article that leads you to that conclusion?

??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? In this case, natural selection will allow the group of predators that can get food better to have more offspring. More offspring means a higher percentage of the predator population will be the faster predator (in this case).

Perhaps I don't fully understand your version of "natural selection" and why it cannot occur in your reality.

I already explained the mistake: assuming "Natural Selection".

They predict A, based upon NS. They observe B. Since NS must always be assumed, they cannot confess that this is a strike against NS. Their religion forbids, and career consciousness plays a role as well.

So, rather than "NS is falsified", they say "NS occurred, but our predictions are wrong". NS is thus not subject to testing. Therefore NS must not be science, but literary device.

I am predicting no such thing. To do so would be silly. It would be self-defeating. Your trap is wasted on me.

I pretty much understand all versions of the selection goddess. I also understand that you and most evolutionists feel compelled to switch versions quite frequently.

One minute she's omniscient, eliminating any "defect" no matter how minute, no matter that it's an unexpressed recessive trait. Next time you turn around, she's on vacation, allowing all sorts of things to pile up. She can choose a single gene in a single fly out of all the flies in the world, and preserve it. Yet she "only sees populations" every other Tuesday.

Then what are you saying? Try being less cryptic.

I asked you what version you were arguing against. Does this mean you are arguing against any form of natural selection at all?

Perhaps the real explanation is a bit more complex than you think and the appearance of conflict is a characteristic of that complexity. Sorry if it is difficult for you to understand, but reality is often that way.

I wasn't saying anything more than I've already said. You posted some nonsense and asked me to stumble into taking credit for it. I declined. What's cryptic about that?

I said it is an error to assume "Natural Selection". What's cryptic about that?

Want to know what CTD has said? You can start your homework project with these.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1655

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44690#Post44690

This is also relevant:
http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47156#Post47156
Linear's trying to profit from the fact that "natural selection", as an element of evolutionism, is too unscientific a concept for anyone to bother writing down in the form of a testable hypothesis.

That it should be testable is implied. It's not hard to think up tests, in fact. The very thing we're discussing works just fine. They tested it, and it failed. The spin is that since it cannot fail, the test itself is a failure.

Even the arch evopusher T.H. Huxley argued against Darwin and said it needed to be tested, rather than accepted as an assumption. Yet all we seem to get is tests of tests themselves in order to test for the feasibility of perhaps being able to devise a test which could test it under circumstances which will guarantee success (of NS, not the test itself; because that would be impossible).

Does this mean you support them all? Do you claim to understand them all? Does being an evolutionist help win favours with a fickle goddess? What favours does she grant? Maybe killing rivals? Death is all she has to offer, after all.
Perhaps the real explanation is a bit more complex than you think and the appearance of conflict is a characteristic of that complexity. Sorry if it is difficult for you to understand, but reality is often that way. [/quote]When you assert that appearances are only illusions, the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate the illusion. Until illusion is demonstrated, observation stands firm.