real life wrote:Then how 'bout addressing what I've asked in regard to this:
Why was B 'selected for' if it did not have a 'survival advantage' over A?
Either you're a dense fool or you're deliberately ignoring huge swathes of my post. I refer you to the latter half of
Post #2929816, where I state I never said B didn't have a survial advantage over A.
Quote:You want to have it both ways. B evolves from A, but then B loses out to A.
Once again, either your reading skills are abysmal or you're deliberately ignoring sections of my post, in order to argue against a strawman. I refer you to post
#2925148 where I stated quite explicitly not that B loses out to A, but it loses out to the combined forces of A and C. A alone would not be able to out-compete B.
Before C came along, B would have competed with A for food, but if the competition from A got too hot, it could always eat from another source where it had no competition from A. Hence that is how it survived.
Along comes C. Now it has competition from C. A is eating one of its food sources and C is eating the other. Eventually, B will lose out, because it has more selection pressures against it as a result of C appearing.
In effect, it loses out to C, but A contributes to the exctinction of B, hence B loses out to both.
Quote:Evolution allows this because there really isn't any scenario that can't be concocted that will contradict evolution.
If the critter survived.......well it's evolution. He was better adapted.
If the critter didn't survive.......well it's evolution. He wasn't better adapted.
It's unfalsifiable.
Wrong. Evolution is falsifiable. It states quite clearly that genetic mutations arise, which are selected for by environmental pressures and that through continued selection, the trait is maintained in a population.
All you have to do to falsify evolution is to introduce a genetic mutation into an organism and then select for it. Take
E. coli or baker's yeast or fission yeast and introduce an antibiotic resistance gene into it. Then select for the gene by applying that antibiotic to the cells. Do a control with no mutation.
If evolution is false, there should be no difference between the two. Thing is, there is a difference between the two. The ones with the mutation survive. I know. I've done the experiment in a lab and repeated it, several times (more times than I'd have wanted to, to tell you the truth).
That's why Creationists consistently fail, RL. Evolution's major concept has been proven to be true. Mutations have been observed in populations. Selection pressures have been observed to act on mutations and select for them.
Evolution is the most solid and uncontroversial science in existence. It is a concrete pillar, the foundation of biological sciences... I would even go as far as to say it is Biology's Theory of Everything. It explains cancer cells. It explains antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It helps us identify new strains of viruses. It should help us identify which species are most likely to survive and which ones require conservation efforts.
It is supported by several different scientific disciplines, so much so, that to properly defend Evolution from Creationists, one has to know geology, paleontology, archaeology, zoology, biochemistry, molecular biology, cancer biology, virology, astrophysics, physics, chemistry and probably a whole host of other sciences that may have slipped my mind.
You, RL, are banging your head against the proverbial brick wall, except its less of a brick wall and more of a reinforced concrete pillar.
