Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Darwin's thought was an assumption, and i dont repeatable attempt to insult you or others. If i have, i apologize, its not my intent. But i think its funny how others that post on here say i dont read there links or the message in there posts, i do. I'll look at all angles. I'm not going to say "well i dont like his post, i wont believe in it" If im proven wrong in a subject, ill say so. I have no problem saying im wrong and your right. But until you guys discuss the posts my hands are tied. But i will try not to insult, im sorry, it wasnt my intent.
since you said ask, can you give us some examples of "fine tuned" organisms that can not come from Evolution.
Can you then show us why they could not come from evolution.
The beautiful hanging nests built by orioles are not necessary for survival. Many other birds build plainer nests. Some build none at all. The nest of a dove is a small flat bunch of sticks on the fork of a horizontal limb. In contrast, its neighbor, the oriole, weaves a complicated nest swinging below the end of a branch.
Natural selection cannot explain the beautiful designs and colors on bird eggs, each distinctive for its own species. One can identify many species of birds by their eggs alone. These differences have no connection with survival, or winning a mate, or the successful leaving of progeny. A cat’s instinctive technique for washing its face cannot have been selected for these reasons. This is also true of our own enjoyment of music, for example, which is not required for survival.
I can see a bird in the cold not having enough feathers, i can even possibly see a mutation happening causing the bird to grow more feathers. But to say that mutation happening caused the bird to grow more feathers for the sole purpose of helping it out is kinda crazy. It's like saying, this bird is cold, lets help it out, lets send in a mutation to grow more feathers. You have to admit that mutations are random. But to say is mutation occurred for the sole purpose of helping out, come on.
Nobody (except you) is saying this.
Lets take a population of 99 birds. Of this population, 33 have a genetic makup for producing lots of heavy feathers, 33 have a genetic makup for producing a few feathers, and 33 have a genetic makeup to produce no feathers. If the environment is getting gradually colder, over time, the descendents of the 33 who produce heavy feathers will have an advantage (not as many will die due to cold). Each generation will see more heavy feathered birds survive then the last. The descendents of that original 33 will survive and the gene for heavy feathers will become more predominent in each generation.
This is natural selection. There is variation within a population. Out of that variation, some of the variants will provide an advantage and those with the beneficial variation will produce more surviving offspring. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Populations evolve, individuals don't. A mutation happens at the time of birth and is selected for (either positively or negatively) by the environment simply due to the fact that the animal will either die or reproduce.
Nobody is saying that a mutation will come to help an animal that is already born, or that a mutation will come to aid a specific problem or change in the environment. There is variation within each generation and those variations are selected for.
You need to understand natural selection before you rail against it. Perhaps you could define natural selection in your own words so that we can make sure you have a clear understanding of what the theory of evolution is discussing.
notto, i dont believe you read, do you. I talked about this already. No need to restate a point everyone here knows, me included, or do you want anyother page long essay on the problems with natural selection.
I can see a bird in the cold not having enough feathers, i can even possibly see a mutation happening causing the bird to grow more feathers. But to say that mutation happening caused the bird to grow more feathers for the sole purpose of helping it out is kinda crazy. It's like saying, this bird is cold, lets help it out, lets send in a mutation to grow more feathers. You have to admit that mutations are random. But to say is mutation occurred for the sole purpose of helping out, come on.
Then you knew that this was a strawman when you wrote it? Perhaps I misunderstood. Here, you seem to be talking about an individual that is affected by a specific mutation to help it adapt after it is born to its environment.
If that is not what you were saying, then I misunderstood the post. If that is what you were saying, then you are not discussing natural selection.
The beautiful hanging nests built by orioles are not necessary for survival. Many other birds build plainer nests. Some build none at all. The nest of a dove is a small flat bunch of sticks on the fork of a horizontal limb. In contrast, its neighbor, the oriole, weaves a complicated nest swinging below the end of a branch.
If at some point in the orioles habitat it was confronted with an egg stealing predator, you can be that this provided an advantage. Just because the predator does not exist now, does not mean that it didn't at some point. Natural selection can sure explain this and give a valid reason for this different nest. At one point, the oriole may have out competed every bird in it territory due to this nest design
Natural selection cannot explain the beautiful designs and colors on bird eggs, each distinctive for its own species. One can identify many species of birds by their eggs alone. These differences have no connection with survival, or winning a mate, or the successful leaving of progeny.
Again, if at one time egg color prevented predation against them it would explain it, or the egg color could be simply random mutations and it would be neutral. Egg color could also be tied to a different trait such as egg size, shell composition, etc. This would tie the color to a variation that does provide benefit. No problem here for evolutionary theory.
A cat’s instinctive technique for washing its face cannot have been selected for these reasons.
A clean cat is a healthy cat. A healthy cat will survive better and produce more offspring. If these offspring either have a disposition for cleaning like their mother, or it is a learned behavior, it will provide advantage. This is classic natural selection.
This is also true of our own enjoyment of music, for example, which is not required for survival.
On this, we can agree, appreciation of music would not seem to have a link to survival. Will your children appreciate and enjoy music the same way you do? Is this enjoyment of music an inheritable trait?
Linear Mode
