Jesus and I have the same adaptation: are we more evolved, or less?

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
Hi there,

Suppose something for a minute: Jesus and I have the same adaptation, are we more evolved or less?

What would give Him praise?

Will my copying His adaptation, mean that I am as free from death as He is?

Imagine everyone has Jesus' adaptation: can decay change us?
Better question - what if we interrupted the adaptation?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Better question - what if we interrupted the adaptation?

You got it mate!

Is an adaptation interrupted, the current species, or the previous one?

It takes a little genius to understand that mate (not just accepting it): well done!
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You got it mate!

Is an adaptation interrupted, the current species, or the previous one?

It takes a little genius to understand that mate (not just accepting it): well done!

Adaptations are not species.

Also, you can't interrupt an adaptation. An adaptation is a difference from the parents, it is not a process that can be interrupted.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Adaptations are not species.

Also, you can't interrupt an adaptation. An adaptation is a difference from the parents, it is not a process that can be interrupted.

What are you talking about?

Certain individuals have an adaptation of "no Wisdom teeth" - it is not necessary for the species to have no Wisdom teeth at all, for it to be thought that people without them are evolved?

What you are saying makes sense if you say "some people have no wisdom teeth but others have very good dentists, so the point is moot" - but even then you are dodging the link, rather than theorizing with it.

I always thought adaptation was an outcrop of resistance to mutation - that's how it is typically sold: you are saying you can stop saying the word adaptation and it won't affect what actually adapts? I don't buy that.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What are you talking about?

Certain individuals have an adaptation of "no Wisdom teeth" - it is not necessary for the species to have no Wisdom teeth at all, for it to be thought that people without them are evolved?

No. The "no wisdom teeth" is a variation. If a variation conveys some reproductive advantage, it can be called an adaptation, since it is making the individuals with that variation better adapted to produce offspring.

In the case of "no wisdom teeth", this would be an adaptation, since wisdom teeth can cause many problems which can conceivably reduce the chances of reproducing.

But it makes no sense to say that if all Humans had the "no wisdom teeth" variation that they would be a different species than those who do have them. That kind of difference is just way too small to count as a different species. Generally speaking, the change has to be large enough that two individuals can't reproduce in order for them to be called a different species.

For example, I never got wisdom teeth, but my husband did. Yet, we were still able to produce a child together.

So, if two individuals don't produce offspring (whether it's because they are just not genetically compatible, or more rarely, because they do not give out the right behavioural or visual signals), they are different species.

What you are saying makes sense if you say "some people have no wisdom teeth but others have very good dentists, so the point is moot" - but even then you are dodging the link, rather than theorizing with it.

As I said, the "no wisdom teeth" example is so small that it makes no difference when it comes to making a different species.

I always thought adaptation was an outcrop of resistance to mutation - that's how it is typically sold: you are saying you can stop saying the word adaptation and it won't affect what actually adapts? I don't buy that.

Where did you get the idea that "adaptation" meant "resisting mutation"?

An adaptation is a mutation (also called a variation) that helps an animal to survive and reproduce.
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
You got it mate!

Is an adaptation interrupted, the current species, or the previous one?

It takes a little genius to understand that mate (not just accepting it): well done!
I havde nothing - it was parody.

There is no such thing as "interrupting" an adaptation, that is stupid.
 
Upvote 0