• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Discussion on the how it all started

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,385.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Natural selection is a natural process. There is no "he". And yes, it does fail at times and species go extinct.
No. No. No. If a species goes extinct that is Natural Selection working perfectly well. It was unfit for the environment it was attempting to live in.

Oh come on even, evolutionists don't really believe this.
Most change is due to random genetic drift rather than positive selection. It could be called the survival of the luckiest.
Without cherry-picking, but by providing multiple citations to established experts in their fields, from reputable peer reviewed journals, justify this ridiculous assertion you have just made.
Hint: the only way you can do this is by cherry-picking a sub-set (quite a small sub-set) of evolutionary thought. In other words, you are talking balderdash.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Oh come on even, evolutionists don't really believe this.
Most change is due to random genetic drift rather than positive selection. It could be called the survival of the luckiest.

Read more: Evolution myths: Natural selection is the only means of evolution
I never claimed that natural selection was the only source. I was pointing out that one cannot go totally by natural variation. When one makes the mistake of focusing only on natural variation to claim that evolution is random one is making a gross error.

And yes, genetic drift is another factor but I did not mention it specifically was because it is harder to understand. One starts with the basics and moves on from there once those are understood. You were only focusing on variation which is why I tried to help you to understand natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It’s not the point. You can not compare two things that are not the same and draw conclusions on one based on the other.

I have a pair of shoes that were designed. Therefore my cats were designed.

Again: did you read the paper I linked you to?
Your pair of shoes perhaps only evolved. I suppose if I leave a cow hide outside long enough it will tan itself and see itself into a nice pair of work shoes.... It hasn't worked yet but I'm still hopeful... perhaps the next road-killed fox I find will form itself into a fur hat all by itself.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I've read what he says about eugentics. And some of his other stuff.
Care to post any of it with links to valid sources? Are you sure that you are not conflating Darwin's work with Darwin's cousin? Darwin had a cousin that was into eugenics and misapplied Darwin's work.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your pair of shoes perhaps only evolved. I suppose if I leave a cow hide outside long enough it will tan itself and see itself into a nice pair of work shoes.... It hasn't worked yet but I'm still hopeful... perhaps the next road-killed fox I find will form itself into a fur hat all by itself.
<sigh> Shoes do not self reproduce with variations and then undergo natural selection. Failed analogy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
A horse is a dog is a pig is a boy? You just told me that isn't so. So which is it? Again you can't get there without intermediate " species"

I'm having a hard time following your posts.

For the record, I never said there weren't intermediates. It's just that cats and dogs are not intermediate species with respect to one another.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your pair of shoes perhaps only evolved. I suppose if I leave a cow hide outside long enough it will tan itself and see itself into a nice pair of work shoes.... It hasn't worked yet but I'm still hopeful... perhaps the next road-killed fox I find will form itself into a fur hat all by itself.
Resorting to argumentum ad absurdum only shows you know nothing about ToE. I advise you stick to the ID/creo/cdesign proponentsists arguments.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,385.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Your pair of shoes perhaps only evolved. I suppose if I leave a cow hide outside long enough it will tan itself and see itself into a nice pair of work shoes.... It hasn't worked yet but I'm still hopeful... perhaps the next road-killed fox I find will form itself into a fur hat all by itself.
Sadly, your attempt to ridicule the ToE only makes you appear ridiculous. Why are you afraid of acquiring a sound understanding of evolutionary theory? Millions of other Christians are altogether comfortable with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without cherry-picking, but by providing multiple citations to established experts in their fields, from reputable peer reviewed journals, justify this ridiculous assertion you have just made.
Hint: the only way you can do this is by cherry-picking a sub-set (quite a small sub-set) of evolutionary thought. In other words, you are talking balderdash.
I was quoting evolution believers. If you disagree, fine. But even the term natural selection is an oxymoron. It supposes intelligence in nature that evolution dismisses. The coding of your DNA did not just happen by chance selection. Chance has no ability to select anything.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Could you direct me to the specific material on eugentics (sic) please.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]

He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never claimed that natural selection was the only source. I was pointing out that one cannot go totally by natural variation. When one makes the mistake of focusing only on natural variation to claim that evolution is random one is making a gross error.

And yes, genetic drift is another factor but I did not mention it specifically was because it is harder to understand. One starts with the basics and moves on from there once those are understood. You were only focusing on variation which is why I tried to help you to understand natural selection.
Natural
I never claimed that natural selection was the only source. I was pointing out that one cannot go totally by natural variation. When one makes the mistake of focusing only on natural variation to claim that evolution is random one is making a gross error.

And yes, genetic drift is another factor but I did not mention it specifically was because it is harder to understand. One starts with the basics and moves on from there once those are understood. You were only focusing on variation which is why I tried to help you to understand natural selection.
Natural selection is very easy to understand

Natural selection prefers one lot of information over another, leading to adaptation. However, selection by itself can choose only from what is there—it can’t create new, more complex, functional information needed to transform one type of creature into another.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Natural

Natural selection is very easy to understand

Natural selection prefers one lot of information over another, leading to adaptation. However, selection by itself can choose only from what is there—it can’t create new, more complex, functional information needed to transform one type of creature into another.
And now you are forgetting about variation.

For some odd reason creationists cannot seem to be able to realize that there are at least two (actually more of course) driving forces of evolution.

One more time, variation adds new traits, natural selection preserves beneficial ones. Together they make "complex functional information" (another throw away term that they cannot defined or show any evidence for) If you think that you can refute evolution by only referring to one of them you are fooling yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I was quoting evolution believers. If you disagree, fine. But even the term natural selection is an oxymoron. It supposes intelligence in nature that evolution dismisses. The coding of your DNA did not just happen by chance selection. Chance has no ability to select anything.
No, it doesn't. And natural selection is not "chance" it is the opposite of chance. In fact it is so obviously true that at times creationists complain that it is a tautology. No intelligence needed. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]

He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.


I see that you did not understand your source. He was not advocating eugenics. He was stating what appeared to be regretfully true. He had seen first hand the work of various explorers and colonizers. He was afraid that "civilized man" would eliminate others. And they came close to doing that in places. He was not all that wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,824
16,447
55
USA
✟413,847.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I was quoting evolution believers. If you disagree, fine. But even the term natural selection is an oxymoron. It supposes intelligence in nature that evolution dismisses. The coding of your DNA did not just happen by chance selection. Chance has no ability to select anything.

This post alone is enough to know that you really don't know anything useful about evolution -- what it is, how it works -- including the notion that it has "believers". That's not how science works. It's not a religion; it's not a political philosophy; it's not a lifestyle.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,385.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I was quoting evolution believers. If you disagree, fine. .
Internet conventions, Forum Rules and common courtesy require that when assertions are made they are supported. Please provide support for your assertion by offering citations for these alleged quotes.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,473
4,011
47
✟1,117,896.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
A horse is a dog is a pig is a boy? You just told me that isn't so. So which is it? Again you can't get there without intermediate " species"
For 800th time, there aren't leaps.

The change is so gradual that you can't tell from one generation to another.

Grizzly bears and Polar bears are two very closely related species, but have a whole lot of specialised variations to survive in their different environments. The Ancestral bear population would have been more similar to those two then their cousins the black bears.

All bears are pretty similar... but it's also clear that the dog family is also pretty similar to the bear. Genetics supports this.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.