Statements About Evolution

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I will give you my standards:

Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.

Don't care about what the bible says, go with y.

Don't care about what the bible says, start research.

Don't care about what the bible says, go with x.

Don't care about what the bible says, start research.
That's why STDs and COVID are prevalent.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ahem. I'd like to remind everyone to please read my opening post again, and pay particular attention to the bit where I say:

"I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution."

You can take that to mean that I do not want this thread devolving into a thread about Covid and STI prevalence in the world either!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,281.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ahem. I'd like to remind everyone to please read my opening post again, and pay particular attention to the bit where I say:

"I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution."

You can take that to mean that I do not want this thread devolving into a thread about Covid and STI prevalence in the world either!

It will never end if you respond.
 
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
714
504
✟71,668.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
At least I thought of it.

I rest my case.

If you don't believe in common design, and you live in a universe that's at least 94 billion light years wide, made of just over a hundred different elements, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.
Straw man. It has nothing to do with the post to which you were responding.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Okay, just to get things back on track here, Here's the the last statement I made and the following discussion about it with @Mark Quayle:

Statement 6: If an individual has some genetic trait (as in statement 2) that gives it an advantage (as in statement 4), then it can pass that trait on to the offspring it produces (as in statement 3). And since a beneficial trait is likely to result in the individual with that trait producing more offspring (as in statement 5), beneficial traits have a greater chance of being spread than a harmful trait. So beneficial traits will spread more than harmful traits.

Do you agree with this?

"then it [might] pass that trait on to the offspring [if it produces offspring]." But I don't know that that individual will produce offspring; it has not been shown me. Are we still talking about within-the-species traits, or mutations?

But it does make sense to me that beneficial traits are more easily spread than harmful traits that are by mutation. I also agree that individuals inheriting mostly harmful traits tend to die more easily than those with mostly beneficial traits. But I can't agree with the generalization that beneficial mutated traits will more likely produce offspring that will pass that gene down to successive generations, than those with harmful extant traits will reproduce. At least, not until it is shown me.

"then it [might] pass that trait on to the offspring [if it produces offspring]." But I don't know that that individual will produce offspring; it has not been shown me. Are we still talking about within-the-species traits, or mutations?

Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.

And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.

But it does make sense to me that beneficial traits are more easily spread than harmful traits that are by mutation. I also agree that individuals inheriting mostly harmful traits tend to die more easily than those with mostly beneficial traits. But I can't agree with the generalization that beneficial mutated traits will more likely produce offspring that will pass that gene down to successive generations, than those with harmful extant traits will reproduce. At least, not until it is shown me.

The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.

Most species have a natural drive to produce offspring. Without reproduction, the genetic line dies out completely and there is no evolution.

And this stuff of "within-the-species traits" and "mutations" makes it sound like you think a mutation is something like that horse born with wings stuff. It's not. As I've said, most mutations are very small changes to what's already there, since larger changes tend to result in unviable embryos.

Don't worry. I'm not into winged horses. Nor New Jersey devils. In fact, for example, the South Carolina "Lamp Eel" that lives in ditches, that I don't know if it is a fish or what, and breathes air and many of them have little pollywog-looking 'front' legs behind their gills —I don't know if maybe they are a different species of their own, or a link between species, or strangely enough, if there are existing genetics common to many/all creatures to cause such strangenesses to happen and to be reproduced. Anyhow, you don't need to convince me that large changes don't happen suddenly, nor that evolution does not teach such a thing.

The simple answer is that the individuals with the beneficial traits will be likely to produce more offspring since they are probably going to live longer due precisely to the beneficial traits they have. A longer life means more breeding opportunities.

Yes, if they can breed, and breed with others with the same genetic trait and so produce offspring with that genetic result. Still sounds like 'within-the-species' to me, but I don't know enough to say it can't happen by mutation.

So it seems to me that Mark has agreed with me regarding Statement 6. If you still don't agree with that statement, @Mark Quayle please let me know. But froim the sounds of it, you agree that parents have the possibility of passing on traits that are carried by genes to their offspring, and that genes that convey benefits (in other words, traits that create more opportunities to reproduce) are more likely to be passed on than traits that convey disadvantages.

Statement 7: Environmental pressures play a large part in determining whether a trait is advantageous or disadvantageous. For example, a gene that causes a thicker coat of fur would be beneficial in a cold environment (and an individual with this trait is likely to have more opportunities to reproduce because it can better survive in the cold), but the same "thick fur" trait in a hot desert can be a disadvantage, causing the individual to be more likely to overheat and thus die sooner. Please note that I'm not saying that environmental pressures are the only pressure, simply that they are a major one.

Do you agree with this?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Okay, just to get things back on track here, Here's the the last statement I made and the following discussion about it with @Mark Quayle:









So it seems to me that Mark has agreed with me regarding Statement 6. If you still don't agree with that statement, @Mark Quayle please let me know. But froim the sounds of it, you agree that parents have the possibility of passing on traits that are carried by genes to their offspring, and that genes that convey benefits (in other words, traits that create more opportunities to reproduce) are more likely to be passed on than traits that convey disadvantages.

Statement 7: Environmental pressures play a large part in determining whether a trait is advantageous or disadvantageous. For example, a gene that causes a thicker coat of fur would be beneficial in a cold environment (and an individual with this trait is likely to have more opportunities to reproduce because it can better survive in the cold), but the same "thick fur" trait in a hot desert can be a disadvantage, causing the individual to be more likely to overheat and thus die sooner. Please note that I'm not saying that environmental pressures are the only pressure, simply that they are a major one.

Do you agree with this?
Yes, with reservations as to the generalizations involved in your points and as to where you might go with them.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, with reservations as to the generalizations involved in your points and as to where you might go with them.

As I've already said, I am trying to illustrate the general points. There are more complex issues at play as well, but none of them render what I have said either wrong or impossible.

And I'm a little concerned with you saying that you have reservations as to where I am going to go with this. That seems to be suggesting that you'll decide for or against based on whether you agree with the conclusion or not. I certainly hope that's not what you mean!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
As I've already said, I am trying to illustrate the general points. There are more complex issues at play as well, but none of them render what I have said either wrong or impossible.

And I'm a little concerned with you saying that you have reservations as to where I am going to go with this. That seems to be suggesting that you'll decide for or against based on whether you agree with the conclusion or not. I certainly hope that's not what you mean!
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.

Jesus was not afraid to say that "something" was axiomatic - namely, the first and second commandments.

However, I agree that saying a series of facts are axiomatic, stretches the imagination a little more than was intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would expect you to be concerned, but you need not be concerned because of the conclusions, but, rather, because of the means to the conclusions. Generalizations, particularly if presented as axiomatic without even giving 'proof' of their veracity, are dangerous. You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.

Are you suggesting that evidence is required of these things? I mean, with regards to Statement 1, I think it's obvious to everyone that in a given population of animals, that there are going to be variations among the individuals. You can spend an afternoon at your local shopping mall and see this for yourself.

Likewise, with regards to Statement 2 I think it's clear to most people that genes play a very significant role in what characteristics you have. My blonde hair, my blue eyes, my straight nose, the fact that I have the little dangly bits at the bottom of my earlobe, all these are examples of traits that are caused by genes.

Concerning Statement 3, I hope you already understand that parents pass on their genes to their offspring.

And with Statement 4, I hope that it's fairly clear that different traits can have an effect in how well the animal survives. If an animal has a gene that causes its bones to be slightly more brittle, then that can mean it will suffer a broken bone in a situation where another animal without the genes would not break a bone.

Likewise, with Statement 5, I think it is fairly clear that animals that have traits that help them (such as a slightly thicker coat in a cold climate) are more likely to survive for longer, and thus have more opportunities to reproduce. After all, the longer you live, the more time for breeding.

And as a consequence of the above statements, if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction (such as a gene which confers a benefit to living longer, or growing larger antlers and driving off rivals, that kind of thing), then the gene for that advantage can be passed to the offspring. And then the offspring will have that same gene. The chance that this gene will be passed on to offspring is going to be a bit higher than the average chance for some random gene to be passed on. Likewise, the gene that causes a disadvantage is going to be LESS likely to be passed on, since it would result in a poorer chance for reproduction, either by means of killing the animal (such as my above brittle bone example) or by making it less likely to breed (smaller antlers which can't drive off competitors).

If you require concrete examples of any of these, please let me know.
 
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
376
255
Vancouver
✟45,742.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
You seem to want me to agree that they are axiomatic.

If I may? It's not that these are axiomatic—they are not a priori—so much as they are generalizations to be accepted "for the sake of argument." They are a posteriori, that is, knowledge dependent on empirical evidence. That can be explored, of course, but she is trying to lay some groundwork first, to find out where the discussion needs to go.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
If I may? It's not that these are axiomatic

But that said, you have responded from a philosophical perspective, in doing so.

That's not wrong, if anything it is a strength, as to whether you find what is said 'agreeable' (philosophically).
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If I may? It's not that these are axiomatic—they are not a priori—so much as they are generalizations to be accepted "for the sake of argument." They are a posteriori, that is, knowledge dependent on empirical evidence. That can be explored, of course, but she is trying to lay some groundwork first, to find out where the discussion needs to go.
Then I think it would be worthwhile to lay it out, perhaps flowchart-style. But instead, @Kylie is asking me to agree with each step, and I cannot without reservations.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then I think it would be worthwhile to lay it out, perhaps flowchart-style. But instead, @Kylie is asking me to agree with each step, and I cannot without reservations.

Well, let's go through each statement and you can tell me the reservations you have, and I can respond to them.

Do you have any reservations about Statement 1, where I said that different individuals in a population have different traits?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Are you suggesting that evidence is required of these things? I mean, with regards to Statement 1, I think it's obvious to everyone that in a given population of animals, that there are going to be variations among the individuals. You can spend an afternoon at your local shopping mall and see this for yourself.

Likewise, with regards to Statement 2 I think it's clear to most people that genes play a very significant role in what characteristics you have. My blonde hair, my blue eyes, my straight nose, the fact that I have the little dangly bits at the bottom of my earlobe, all these are examples of traits that are caused by genes.

Concerning Statement 3, I hope you already understand that parents pass on their genes to their offspring.

And with Statement 4, I hope that it's fairly clear that different traits can have an effect in how well the animal survives. If an animal has a gene that causes its bones to be slightly more brittle, then that can mean it will suffer a broken bone in a situation where another animal without the genes would not break a bone.

Likewise, with Statement 5, I think it is fairly clear that animals that have traits that help them (such as a slightly thicker coat in a cold climate) are more likely to survive for longer, and thus have more opportunities to reproduce. After all, the longer you live, the more time for breeding.

And as a consequence of the above statements, if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction (such as a gene which confers a benefit to living longer, or growing larger antlers and driving off rivals, that kind of thing), then the gene for that advantage can be passed to the offspring. And then the offspring will have that same gene. The chance that this gene will be passed on to offspring is going to be a bit higher than the average chance for some random gene to be passed on. Likewise, the gene that causes a disadvantage is going to be LESS likely to be passed on, since it would result in a poorer chance for reproduction, either by means of killing the animal (such as my above brittle bone example) or by making it less likely to breed (smaller antlers which can't drive off competitors).

If you require concrete examples of any of these, please let me know.
As you state these 5, I have no objections, (though your #5 still smells of a blanket statement), until your next paragraph. Hence, my reservations.

With those 5, I agree as you state them here. But in past posts, you drew conclusions from those 5, for example: while in the paragraph above you say "if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction..." while in past posts, what came across was (my paraphrase) "thus they are able to reproduce more", assuming facts not in evidence. I hope in your paragraph above you meant only "if".

Oh, and an example of better genetics resulting in more offspring isn't going to do the job. Your generalization isn't going to rest on one (or even a few) example(s). Mules are better in some ways than horses and donkeys, including (from what I remember hearing), hardiness. So by your reasoning (yes, I know you don't mean to be talking about mules here) they should have more opportunities to breed. But they don't breed. (Ha! Yes I know, the defeat of a generalization isn't going to rest on just one example either.)

And I'm still not sure if your generalization is meant to be within one species or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Well, let's go through each statement and you can tell me the reservations you have, and I can respond to them.

Do you have any reservations about Statement 1, where I said that different individuals in a population have different traits?
No reservations there. It is obvious.
 
Upvote 0