1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Statements About Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Kylie, Aug 4, 2022.

  1. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,787
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That's why STDs and COVID are prevalent.
     
  2. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    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!
     
  3. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    It will never end if you respond.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  4. ruthiesea

    ruthiesea Well-Known Member

    624
    +439
    Judaism
    Married
    Straw man. It has nothing to do with the post to which you were responding.
     
  5. public hermit

    public hermit social troglodyte-tested and approved Supporter

    +10,074
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Not to be self-referentially incoherent, but it would be great to see this conversation without having to skip random comments. :)
     
  6. DialecticSkeptic

    DialecticSkeptic Evolutionary Creationist

    104
    +64
    Canada
    Reformed
    Married
    There are people here to whom I would like to respond, but it's neither Kylie nor Mark Quayle. So, what am I to do? (Sorry, this is yet another "random comment" that needs to be skipped.)
     
  7. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    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:

    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?
     
  8. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,165
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    .
     
  9. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Yes, with reservations as to the generalizations involved in your points and as to where you might go with them.
     
  10. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    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!
     
  11. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    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.
     
  12. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +671
    Messianic
    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.
     
  13. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    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.
     
  14. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +671
    Messianic
    Jesus said "there are things you do for your young, that you wouldn't do for anyone else"

    This is not a new thing, but an old one.
     
  15. DialecticSkeptic

    DialecticSkeptic Evolutionary Creationist

    104
    +64
    Canada
    Reformed
    Married
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  16. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +671
    Messianic
    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).
     
  17. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    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.
     
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,797
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    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?
     
  19. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    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.
     
  20. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,230
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    No reservations there. It is obvious.
     
Loading...