I don't have the time to engage in lengthy debates but seeing as how it's just me and sometimes Linear here now to answer these kinds of posts, I feel as I did before -- that someone should be around to point out the most blatant misrepresentations of science.

CTD continues to criticise that which he does not understand, and that can be demonstrated with a couple of examples.

Quote
The mutations that aren't eliminated spread throughout the population. How many steps backward can one take for every step forward and still make progress?


Most mutations are neutral. The harmful ones will not spread through the population because the organisms without the harmful mutation will continue to out-reproduce the others, and those with beneficial mutations will out-reproduce those. Most organisms with harmful mutations don't even reach the reproduction stage at all, which those who have been reading RAZD's posts will understand. Favourable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population, and unfavourable heritable traits become less common, due to the different reproductive rates of those organisms. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism. Natural selection 101. There are some exceptions, such as reproductive isolation and genetic drift.

Quote
I have requested evidence on this on other forums, and never once has anyone directed me to an observation of 'natural selection'.


Again, those who have carefully been reading the posts here containing real science will remember the numerous examples Russ2 gave of bacteria experiments which began with one single bacterium. Scientists actually have seen natural selection in action. You can read more here.

Last edited by LindaLou; 11/01/08 09:59 AM.