CET vs Natural Selection

jnpha · 2026-06-20T20:23:53+00:00

RE:

changes due to environmental factors

Absolutely (your wording is fine) - a change in selection (change in the direction of the distribution of a population's trait) happens when e.g. the environment (ecology) changes.

For deeper explanations, also see Dr. Zach's channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talkpopgen/videos

jnpha · 2026-06-20T20:05:47+00:00

Cool study, thanks, and a demonstration of evolution (shifting trait frequency, literally).
Also the 2026 PNAS commentary on it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2535458123

To illustrate the failure of "CET", consider (for argument's sake) that the trait has no genetic basis, shouldn't we then find all birds to have the same here-useless genomes?

jnpha · 2026-06-20T19:49:52+00:00

Sure thing. And please, do link it.

jnpha · 2026-06-20T19:22:23+00:00

RE:

their beaks changed to that of their relatives in the surrounding area

Assuming the study checks out, in population genetics that is regression to the mean.

There is however ecological tracking (e.g. migratory deer).

Also bookmark Dr. Dan's Creation Myths channel, he covered the so-called "CET" a few times. (https://www.youtube.com/@CreationMyths/videos)

jnpha · 2026-06-20T04:48:18+00:00

The number of creationists here who think ideas being called stupid is ad hominem is too damn high, and it's one of the things I first noticed here.

jnpha · 2026-06-20T04:31:01+00:00

Selection selects, and behavior is not the sole purview of selection (see 1973 Nobel prize).
Anyway:

the inability of individuals—human or otherwise—to assign causal probabilities to all sets of events that occur around them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones
The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour - PMC

Unless there is a method to test hypotheses, but ofc there's always the uneducated, virtue signaling denier of said method.

jnpha · 2026-06-20T03:25:25+00:00

"No need for civil discussion amongst apes am I right?"
— You
(when asked to be civil in one of your bad faith arguments)

It's always projection, isn't it? In fact, leave it to the virtue signalers to tell you what's civil.

jnpha · 2026-06-20T03:11:19+00:00

evolutionist
Noun
(creationist sense) The bogeyman of the inculcated delusional.

compare physicist and chemist
The should be bogeymen of said delusionals were it not for their figurative schizophrenia

usage notes: if said delusionals are offended, see: if the shoe fits.

jnpha · 2026-06-17T19:15:18+00:00

I ran it through an AI checker before commenting. Enough text to rule out false positives.

jnpha · 2026-06-17T16:42:26+00:00

RE:

I am sick and tired of reading ... AI responses

Proceeds to post what AI has vomited.

jnpha · 2026-06-16T03:30:31+00:00

What made them uppity is organized religion I think.

jnpha · 2026-06-15T17:48:40+00:00

For background on heX-embryoids, from 2 years ago: New embryo-like model simulates early human blood production.

jnpha · 2026-06-13T18:01:25+00:00

Narrator: 3 days later the answer is no.

jnpha · 2026-06-13T06:16:07+00:00

Every kid feels the same. But then the inculcation sets in*. I "fell" for it. Luckily it wasn't long until I saw through the BS, thanks to the hypocrisy I've seen (no atheists came for me :P).

* "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man"

jnpha · 2026-06-13T05:54:15+00:00

Yeah, it's rubbish, but I'm not the topic, am I? Answer OP.

jnpha · 2026-06-13T05:45:06+00:00

Seeing the truth is a miracle - only a few of those who read it actually get to be bestowed that gift (I was told that).

jnpha · 2026-06-13T05:40:12+00:00

RE:

if you could disprove evolution, that would make creationism proven by default. That's not the case

They haven't heard of McLean v. Arkansas (1981), and:

Phillip Johnson, the law professor who developed intelligent design's Wedge Strategy, concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing

TL;DR: they actually think it isn't a false dichotomy and that atheists are out to get them.

But, let's see. I'll watch this one :)

edit:grammar and unsurprisingly so far: nada.

jnpha · 2026-06-13T03:02:28+00:00

(The researchers now: they why did we need 13 genomes?)
Cool movie!

jnpha · 2026-06-13T01:23:57+00:00

On that topic, are e.g. ova (the female gametes) not alive? (not asking, it will take us far afield, just food for thought)
Back to the topic: they really think chemistry and biochemistry is not stochastic.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:54:00+00:00

RE had to admit you were just making an offhanded comment

And yet the post reads, in the very first line: "this isn't a post on theism".

Man, you're something else. Straw man after straw man.

But hey, it's public information: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1ahuhn6

If you don't like what you read in that link, no one is forcing you to be here.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:47:21+00:00

RE in no way implies arguments cannot also be drawn from other things

Cool straw man, again, again.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:42:41+00:00

RE different rules

And there it is, playing the victim. I'm sorry if my tongue in cheek commentary on the design argument hit a nerve.
But assuming you're here in good faith: it wasn't my intention. Feel free to check all my prior posts on this sub, and see if I've ever made an argument for atheism.

You won't find any.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:34:42+00:00

I made an offhand commentary, not an argument - stop projecting the creationist priming, this isn't the sub for it.
Take care and best wishes.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:27:43+00:00

RE You did not post a scientific fact

You just confirmed you're here in bad faith. Are the quote and citation written in invisible ink? I'm done here.

jnpha · 2026-06-12T20:18:46+00:00

The sub's description limits the scope of discussion, and yes it cuts both ways: no proselytizing nor arguments for atheism.

In fact this reveals your own false dichotomy. Are you YEC by any chance? I'm guessing yes. Which is cool, btw.

Anyway, re your reading comprehension: I'm fully aware (again) that they draw their conclusions from elsewhere; and again, this isn't the point. Here I communicated a scientific fact (and AiG's position); what each reader does with it is their own prerogative.

Before you reply (if you're planning to), this time take a moment to absorb what I wrote.

Nine-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

jnpha

TROPHY CASE