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.
Then answer my questions in Post 181.If you wish to discuss apologetics there is a portion of the CF specific to that. Conversely, science is expected to be discussed here, is it not?
Metamorphosis is not evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals.
It depends on what you mean by "unfit variations." Such monsters as you describe occur only rarely and represent a failure of the evolutionary process. In the ordinary course of events variations are relatively small. Examine the population of any species and observe the normal variation between one individual and another. That is the kind of variation on which natural selection acts.
I don't know what your definition of "evolutionists" is, but I provided a link to a full article describing metamorphosis. Have you read it yet?That's why I tossed it into the mix. Waiting for evolutionists to explain it.
I don't know what your definition of "evolutionists" is, but I provided a link to a full article describing metamorphosis. Have you read it yet?
Lewis Jones robs a bank and gets caught.Right. One small step at a time.
Let's say evolution is a hoax, which one of the many creation stories should we believe and why?Lewis Jones robs a bank and gets caught.
Lewis wants his name in the paper.
The paper says it was all staged, just so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.
Lewis denies it.
The headline reads: EVIL LEW SHUNS A HOAX.
(I just made that up!)
Genesis 1, because Jesus believes it.Let's say evolution is a hoax, which one of the many creation stories should we believe and why?
No - the kind of abnormality you described wouldn't be the result of evolution, which involves changes in a whole population, but of a mutation in an individual. Such an abnormal individual is called a 'sport' ("an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or colour, as a result of spontaneous mutation" Oxford Dictionary).Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution would provide prey species for the one-legged critter (you did want to broach the subject of evolutionary interdependency, which is much more complex.)
Fossilization is rare, and finding fossils even rarer, so while we may occasionally find a few individual fossils out of a large population or whole species (e.g. tens of thousands to millions of individuals), the chances of finding fossils of individual 'sports' are infinitesimal, and since soft tissues aren't usually fossilized, such a fossil would only be recognised as a 'sport' if the mutation resulted in significant bone malformation.Where are the fossil remains of those unfit variations?
No - the kind of abnormality you described wouldn't be the result of evolution, which involves changes in a whole population, but of a mutation in an individual. Such an abnormal individual is called a 'sport' ("an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type, especially in form or colour, as a result of spontaneous mutation" Oxford Dictionary).
Such a mutation in an individual, even if heritable, would be unlikely to persist more than a generation or two at most, so evolution wouldn't be involved.
It's also worth noting that although evolution generates all species, prey species wouldn't evolve as provision for some new predator species, one-legged or otherwise. Co-evolutionary predator-prey development goes the other way, because the predator (by acting as the natural selection pressure and weeding out the easiest prey) drives the evolution of the prey species to be more difficult to prey on. This in turn drives the evolution of the predator to be better at predating the prey. This is often called an 'evolutionary arms race'.
Fossilization is rare, and finding fossils even rarer, so while we may occasionally find a few individual fossils out of a large population or whole species (e.g. tens of thousands to millions of individuals), the chances of finding fossils of individual 'sports' are infinitesimal, and since soft tissues aren't usually fossilized, such a fossil would only be recognised as a 'sport' if the mutation resulted in significant bone malformation.
For less severe heritable mutations, the likelihood of finding a fossil of them will be proportional to their prevalence in the overall population at the time and place that discoverable fossil beds were laid down for that population (if at all).
However, fossils showing evidence of diseases caused by mutations (e.g. tumours) have been found; these mutations mainly affect somatic cells, so they are not usually heritable.
Indeed not. It is what the evolutionary model predicts. But humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.How do you account for the individual differences between 3.5 billion humans? This alone causes problems in the population evolution model, doesn't it?
Indeed not. It is what the evolutionary model predicts. But humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.
Who said it has stopped working? Why would you find that convenient?So evolution has conveniently stopped working in the case of humans.
What about other species?
That depends on the questions.It seems like evolution has all the answers.
Every individual (barring identical twins) has a unique genetic makeup, the combination of each parent, who also have unique genetic makeup. This applies to all sexually reproducing species - it may be that you don't notice the individual differences between them so much because they're not your species. Some have said that even other human populations, "all look the same to me".How do you account for the individual differences between 3.5 billion humans?
In what way?This alone causes problems in the population evolution model, doesn't it?
Not strictly true - we've reduced the most severe selection pressures for many people, but human populations are still evolving by natural selection:... humans are a bad example, because though as a population we exhibit random variation as evolutionary theory predicts, we have taken the forces of natural selection largely into our own hands and it no longer operates as in nature.
Both - if the selection pressure is too great, no individuals may survive to reproduce.Because of natural selection, or in spite of it?
Does it matter?Who was he when he wrote it?
Does it matter?MasonP said:did he write it before he was born?
Sometimes you don´t have an answer because the question is based on false premises or loaded with wrong assumptions.Many 'adults' are unable to answer 'childish' questions, not because they are childish but because they have no answers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?