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.
hence the name. of course you could always say that god had mutated these animals too, but then all you are doing is putting your god in place of mutations and things like bad weather and good eyesight.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Jet black: "a random mutation occurs in a bird, it affects the way the bird can fly. it is just completely random ok? if this mutation is a good one, then the bird can fly better, and is more likely to get food, survive, be strong and breed. if the mutation is bad, then the bird does not eat so well, and does not breed as much. see? simple."
Well, your right, that sounds random to me. Something you guys hate to admit in any area of science, randominess. The sun university gave these 5 occurances of natural selection
"Natural selection occurs because:
1."Individuals within a population vary; they are not all identical."
Geez, i could've told you that, God made male and female, that supports creation.
2."Some variants are “better” than others."
Define "better", does this mean better off in its enivornment to reproduce and survive. Well then, humans have it made, natural selection doesnt apply to humans then. We are "better." Unless we kill ourselves off or die of natural causes natural selection isnt going to do the trick. We will always reproduce and survive, then did we beat NS
3.The traits that vary are heritable.
Duh, DNA proves that, creation there too. But i hope i never die in a car accident, b.c then i couldnt pass on my herity, and if i cant do that im useless to nature.
4.The “better” individuals will have more success reproducing; they will have more offspring."
Wow, more repoducing causes more mouth's to feed, now species are in competition, and thats not good.
5.In successive generations, more offspring will have the better trait.
I hope i never die before i have kids, i want this BETTER trait. Define this better trait? If mutation is random how can successive generations have a better trait, mutations go good and bad remember.
Then you discuess the eye flaw thing, well, to that i say, its going fine so far. The eyes dont impare our ability to reproduce or survive. I have more amazing things about the eyes then you have bad things, but bottom line. When use our eyes just fine, always have, always will, you talk about nerves being backward, well geez, i cant tell, my brain takes care of that. The eye is more amazing than you or i could possibly imagine, plus it doesnt effect our "natural selection." I'm still going to have kids regardless if i have glasses or not, and surviviablity, well, thats what glasses are for. I'm not going to die because of less than perfect vision, though many people have better than 20/20.
And you have still never told me what changes the color in an egg, is it DNA???
Lets look at a butterfly
- Egg,
- Caterpillar,
- Pupa
- Butterfly,
If the caterpillar had, long ago, developed directly into a moth with no pupa stage in between and had left a lot of intermediate fossils to prove it, true believers in evolution might have found some way to explain away the fact that a better protected animal had evolved into something more vulnerable. But such fossils have not been found. The moth seems to have always had the amazing life cycle it has today.
Well, your right, that sounds random to me. Something you guys hate to admit in any area of science, randominess.
nothing wrong with randomness. mistakes are made in copying, that's all.
The sun university gave these 5 occurances of natural selection
"Natural selection occurs because:
1."Individuals within a population vary; they are not all identical."
Geez, i could've told you that, God made male and female, that supports creation.
we are not talking about that, we are talking about some individuals better able to survive and get food.
2."Some variants are “better” than others."
Define "better", does this mean better off in its enivornment to reproduce and survive.
better able to survive, get food and have offspring. I am sure this has been said about a dozen times in this thread.
Well then, humans have it made, natural selection doesnt apply to humans then. We are "better." Unless we kill ourselves off or die of natural causes natural selection isnt going to do the trick. We will always reproduce and survive, then did we beat NS
for the large part we have defeated natural selection yes, because we are the only species that adapts our environment to suit us. this can be done in hours. wheras other species, in order to survive, have to adapt to it, and this takes generations, some species might not even make it - see the dinosaurs for a good example of this.
3.The traits that vary are heritable.
Duh, DNA proves that, creation there too. But i hope i never die in a car accident, b.c then i couldnt pass on my herity, and if i cant do that im useless to nature.
you dying has nothing to do with this, nor does creation. nature does not care about you, nature does not care about anything. kind of like gravity.
4.The “better” individuals will have more success reproducing; they will have more offspring."
Wow, more repoducing causes more mouth's to feed, now species are in competition, and thats not good.
it is if you are the winner of that competition, you get to have more offspring. besides, now you are talking about entire ecosystems, and then natural selection gets complicated because of the thousands of different factors involved. these don't make it conceptually any harder, but don't need to be included here.
5.In successive generations, more offspring will have the better trait.
I hope i never die before i have kids, i want this BETTER trait. Define this better trait? If mutation is random how can successive generations have a better trait, mutations go good and bad remember.
the offspring with the worse trait will die, or be less likely to reproduce. Lets say you were born sterile.
Then you discuess the eye flaw thing, well, to that i say, its going fine so far. The eyes dont impare our ability to reproduce or survive. I have more amazing things about the eyes then you have bad things, but bottom line.
our eyes do what we need them to do, but compared to other animals who rely on their eyesight more than us, our eyes are really ****, because there are lots of flaws in them.
I'm still going to have kids regardless if i have glasses or not, and surviviablity, well, thats what glasses are for. I'm not going to die because of less than perfect vision, though many people have better than 20/20.
but we have already established that NS does not really apply to humans anymore. so what is the point in using a human as an example. try an owl: an owl is born with bad eyesight, what happens to it? does it go to the nearest optician? no.... does it's kindly thoughtful friends bring it a white stick and snacks to last the night, no..... does it order dominoes pizza to save it the bother?
And you have still never told me what changes the color in an egg, is it DNA???
the DNA makes the proteins and things which make the egg, so the DNA will be responsible for colour, plus whatever the bird eats.
Lets look at a butterfly
- Egg,
- Caterpillar,
- Pupa
- Butterfly,
If the caterpillar had, long ago, developed directly into a moth with no pupa stage in between and had left a lot of intermediate fossils to prove it, true believers in evolution might have found some way to explain away the fact that a better protected animal had evolved into something more vulnerable. But such fossils have not been found. The moth seems to have always had the amazing life cycle it has today.
I don't know enough about the specifics of a specific organism to comment. stick to the generalities of how natural selection works.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Jet you said "for the large part we have defeated natural selection yes, because we are the only species that adapts our environment to suit us" Well then ultimetely you think that we are the PERFECT BEING, we defeated something that no other species on this earth can do and given a 4.5 billion year time period to do. We are the only species to defeat this Natural Selection, why? Ummm. But then, it natural selection is constantly changing and over-going then you must agree that species will continue to advance thur time, just as "evolution" as stated in the past. Boy, thats deadly, i would hate to see a bunch of apes or jellyfish beat this Natural Selection too, like we have. The 2 species would be at constant war, just think, planet of the apes, man against ape. You realize the movie is science fiction right?
we are not perfect by a long way, but we are the most successful because we are able to adapt our environment to suit us. however this is not always the case, see malaria and AIDS for selective factors that show that NS still plays a part in the human race. the rest of what you said is just a pointless rant.
Species don't advance, they just adapt to fit their environment, can't you see this, it is such an incredibly simple concept.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
jet black, yes, i understand that concept, wrong wording on my part, i apalogize. You love to throw malaria and AIDS and other diseases into the mix as helping out natual selection. Heredity influence disease, is only hurts a species ability to reproduce and survive, yet some how, some why, humans will figure a cure for almost anything this natural selection throws at us, kinda odd to me.
well it isn't odd really, it is just because we have risen above the natural world and control it, instead of the other way round. if it's cold outside, we turn up the heater so all the bald people don't die. Granted the process (which I think is a natural one, because I have seen no counter evidence) which led us to controlling the environment must have been a fascinating one, but now we control the environment to such a degree that we can live everywhere from a little tin can in a vacuum, to deserts, polar regions and the depths of the oceans, natural selection has little to do with us anymore.
Just out of interest, are you understanding the concept of natural selection a bit more now? I am not asking you if you accept it as right or wrong, that is entirely up to you, but can you see a little more how us scientists think?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Jet black, my mind works a bit faster than i can type. I've learned alot from these discussions on Natural Selection, but i've always known the basics. I think i put a wrong "the" in a sentence somewhere and you guys pick that apart telling me i dont understand the theory, natural selection, ect. I understand these concepts, yes, there not too difficault, but i do think faster than type.
As for us controlling our environment, and being the only species to accomplish this great task, do you find that odd? I'm sure your looking at that question from a purely natural stand point. I think its odd the earth seems to be in perfect balance, the moon, humans over nature (natural selection and thus controlling our environment), cells, the universe, and many more areas of science.
As for us controlling our environment, and being the only species to accomplish this great task, do you find that odd? I'm sure your looking at that question from a purely natural stand point. I think its odd the earth seems to be in perfect balance, the moon, humans over nature (natural selection and thus controlling our environment), cells, the universe, and many more areas of science.
It is astounding that the universe can have all these properties so necessary for life. however if it was any different, we wouldn't be here discussing it. we don't know enough to say if the universe is a one off, or if there are millions, or even if the universe itself is some kind of evolutionary process (I saw an interesting article on formation of universes through black holes a while back... it looked like conjecture to me, but interesting nonetheless).
It could have even been made by a god, and there is nothing to deny that in science (yey?), however just looking at the universe says to me that God wouldn't have needed to bother with the sledgehammer approach of intentionally putting a planet here, and a moon there, when the universe (that he could have designed) seems to be perfectly capable of allowing life to form naturally anyway.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Linear Mode
