Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I never mentioned anything about his book ‘The Origin of Species’. You are off on a tangent again. Stop deflecting

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

"Why do you belive the PragerU's ... 'evolution is a scam' ... humbug? Who benifits from the scam? How? Just know that Mr Jebus got the evo-ball rolling on one of his good days." All the best, Scopes' Monkey (James)

Rose42

That was gibberish.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

That's why I never read or respond to the mentally disturb on here.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Really? It seems there are many who would disagree with your assessment.
~~~~~~~~~~~

”Why is the law of universal gravitation not a theory?

This is a law because it describes the force but makes no attempt to explain how the force works.

A theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explains HOW gravity works by describing gravity as the effect of curvature of four dimensional spacetime.
{Thus explaining the phenomena and accounting for the predicted facts of spacetime curvature and effects of gravitational forces on photons.}

SOURCE: https://socratic.org/questions/is-gravity-a-law-or-theory#:
~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Newton's law of universal gravitation says that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:

F = (G * (m1*m2)) / r^2

where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[i]“Newton’s law of gravitation, is a statement that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.

In symbols, the magnitude of the attractive force F is equal to G (the gravitational constant, a number the size of which depends on the system of units used and which is a universal constant) multiplied by the product of the masses (m1 and m2) and divided by the square of the distance R: F = (G(m1*m2)) / r^2.

Isaac Newton put forward the law in 1687 and used it to explain the observed motions of the planets and their moons, which had been reduced to mathematical form by Johannes Kepler early in the 17th century.

SOURCE: https://www.britannica.com/science/Newtons-law-of-gravitation
~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of references to the universal gravitational LAW. It is not MY doing, but persons from about 1690 who have observed the veracity of the relationship (i.e. Law); it was clarification by Einstein that provided the THEORY which explained the associated phenomena.
And VERIFIED — in theory — the veracity of the “law”.[/b]
~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Google search reveals numerous references to the LAW of universal gravitational attraction:

SOURCE: https://www.google.com/search q=Newton%27s+law+of+universal+gravitation&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS832US833&oq=

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

The thing is: The two CANNOT be separated, is you might like to do. This is because they are BOTH a part of the process of evolution, and explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in response to habitat conditions.

You may not be comfortable with that fact, but the two (and other data) ARE explained by the theory. Certain results ARE predicted and have been verified, and Evolution of biota in response to altering environmental conditions HAS been observed. Repeatedly. Thousands and thousands of times.

To deny the data, the evidence, the facts, the proofs — is the height (or depth) of stupidity.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I’m not uncomfortable with any information and again I was ONLY addressing Natural selection not mutations as I told you before.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

But Natural Selection is part of a PROCESS that requires admission that it works in concert with other concepts.including mutations, inheritance, and vast amounts of time. Natural selection IS NOT an ‘end-in-itself’, and cannot be addressed (or attacked) without considering the whole of which it is a part.

Natural selection, survival of the ‘luckiest’/fittest, mutations, and unfettered expansion into new or different habitats are all part of the non-directed, non-goal seeking evolutionary process.

It is not logically possible to hold out only portion of a complex system, and claim there is some “fault” with an overall concept just because an unproven hypothesis (irreducible complexity) cannot presently understand how complex systems work.


”Natural selection requires variation in a population of organisms. For the process to work, at least some of that variation must be heritable and passed on to organisms’ descendants in some way.
That variation is acted upon by the struggle for existence, a process that in effect “selects” variations conducive to the survival and reproduction of their bearers.

Such “selection” by nature, natural selection, occurs as a result of the struggle for existence and, in the case of sexual populations, the struggle for mating opportunities. That struggle is itself the result of checks on the geometric population increase that would occur in the absence of the checks.

All populations, even slow-breeding ones … will increase in size in the absence of limitations on growth that are imposed by nature.
These checks take different forms in different populations. Such limitations may take the form of limited food supply, limited nesting sites, predation, disease, harsh climactic conditions, and much else besides.

One way or another, only some of the candidate reproducers in natural populations actually do reproduce, often because others simply die before maturity. Owing to the variations among the candidate reproducers, some have better chances of making it into the sample of actual reproducers than do others.

If such variations are heritable, the offspring of those with the “beneficial” traits will be likely to produce especially many further descendants themselves. … By means of this iterative process, a trait conducive to reproduction that is initially found in one or a few population members will spread through the population.”
SOURCE: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/


In response to Behe, and his criticism of evolution/natural selection, here is a reference by another source: https://youtu.be/PZg_9EBhMWo?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

You really have a difficult time reading what I have been saying over and over again don’t you? AGAIN, I am ONLY addressing Natural Selection not mutations via evolution. Just NATURAL SELECTION. Goodness

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

You can say “whatever” as many times as you like. It will not alter the facts of natural selection as a PART of the evolutionary process. Only a part which is also dependent upon the totality of the factors.

And you are deliberately stressing only a portion of a complete concept — as if natural selection stands on its own as a determinative process WITHOUT considering all the other factors that ALLOW evolutionary processes.

I am willing to accept natural selection as a FACTOR in evolutionary processes — but ONLY when the other factors which contribute in concert with it are considered as well.
~~~~~~~~~~

”The theory of natural selection was posited by Charles Darwin (and also Alfred Wallace) who described it as ‘survival of the fittest’

According to this theory, it is not necessarily the strongest or most intelligent that survives, but the ones most responsive to change.

The process of natural selection occurs in response to a number of conditions:

— Inherited Variation – There is genetic variation within a population which can be inherited.
— Competition – There is a struggle for survival (species tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support).
— Selection – Environmental pressures lead to differential reproduction within a population.
— Adaptations – Individuals with beneficial traits will be more likely to survive and pass these traits on to their offspring.
— Evolution – Over time, there is a change in allele frequency within the population gene pool.
— {Time — Geologic time. Millennia. Eons. Millions of years in which to evolve to fit habitat and environmental conditions.}

SOURCE: https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-5-evolution-and-biodi/52-natural-selection/natural-selection.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~

”Positive natural selection, or the tendency of beneficial traits to increase in prevalence (frequency) in a population, is the driving force behind adaptive evolution.
For a trait to undergo positive selection, it must have two characteristics:
— First, the trait must be beneficial; in other words, it must increase the organism's probability of surviving and reproducing.
— Second, the trait must be heritable so that it can be passed to an organism's offspring.

“Beneficial traits are extremely varied and may include anything from protective coloration, to the ability to utilize a new food source, to a change in size or shape that might be useful in a particular environment.
If a trait results in more offspring who share the trait, then that trait is more likely to become common in the population than a trait that arises randomly. At the molecular level, selection occurs when a particular DNA variant becomes more common because of its effect on the organisms that carry it.”

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/evolutionary-adaptation-in-the-human-lineage-12397/

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

lol Goodness you blab off like an insecure little kid with all that bloviated BS. Again, I was ONLY addressing NATURAL SELECTION. You do realize that natural selection can occur without evolution via mutations right? Goodness just pipe down already. Seriously, WTH is wrong with you?

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

OK, you want to address Natural Selection? Fine. Then how do you explain the process of natural selection without considering the factors that actually make it possible?

Goodness, are you being artificially obtuse, or are you really so ill-informed as to not realize the totality of evolution by natural selection and the factors that comprise it?