Natural Selection 3

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some
biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos
islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not
macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the
survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest
(f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs,
evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major
evolutionary changes (g).

f.	"Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did
not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and
critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for
the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And
the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of
all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through
accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural
selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate
stages are not advantageous." S©ªren L©ªvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation
of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274-275.

"It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they
discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of
the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of
natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to
discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental
mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and
therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we
can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but
the work of science continues." Michael J. Behe, "Molecular Machines,"
Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g.	In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger
Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the
history of evolutionary theory." He went on to say:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the
positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be
given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin, "Evolution Theory under Fire,"
Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

"In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in
propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States,
said 'We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species
over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what
the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.' "
Ibid., p. 884.

As stated earlier, micro  time  ¡Á  macro.

"One could argue at this point that such 'minor' changes
[microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in
macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not
support this argument ... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed
in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for
macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution
may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy--especially when one
considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability],
not transformation. ... For those who must describe the history of
life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural
selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who
are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which
occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to
prevent major evolutionary change." Michael Thomas, "Stasis
Considered," Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html#wp1194028

The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:


> The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but
> the work of science continues." Michael J. Behe, "Molecular Machines,"
> Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

The problem in posting such quotes is that we only need to expose
one as nonsense to undermine the argument.

Michael Behe is the darling of the Intelligent Design movement, or
rather was until the Kitzmiller V Dover trial.

If you have a lot of time, you can read the original transcripts
from the trial, through links here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

Whilst he is indeed a biologist, his reputation was effectively
destroyed during the hearing - he was forced to admit that the
scientific reasoning underpinning his Intelligent Design hypothesis
was no better than astrology.

His motivation is not scientific - we have clear quotes on record
from him saying that the science "... needs to make room for god".

You appear to going down the same path as Dave, in quoting
scientific nonsense which is then exposed for what it is.

regards, Ian