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.
shinbits said:I know I said I'd ask only one question, but there seems to be some natural follow-up questions.
If poor eyesight can just happen again, what's the point of natural selection?
Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. WowPlease don't assume that most Christians find making observations and drawing conclusions as to fact from them is absurd. Most Christians consider this to be rational given the rationality of the God who created what we observe.
No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all). I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.In most cases like yours I think that the individual hasn’t looked hard enough at the evidence at hand. I recommend you do some googling on ERVs and our broken vitamin c psudogene. I consider this line of evidence a smoking gun for our common ancestry with chimps.
Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?caravelair said:if an individual gets a mutation for poor eyesight in a population where most individuals have good eyesight, then the mutation will be selected against, and will tend to be purged from the population, rather than becoming more prevalent. so that won't really affect the allele frequencies in the population in a significant way.
shinbits said:I know I said I'd ask only one question, but there seems to be some natural follow-up questions.
If poor eyesight can just happen again, what's the point of natural selection?
SolitarySoul said:Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. Wow
No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all). I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.
shinbits said:Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?
SolitarySoul said:Please read my whole post before making such false conclusions about my words, thanks. Wow
Making our own observations and stating our conclusions as "fact" seems absurd to most Christians because in the Christian belief we are not in a place to be able to determine such a thing.
shinbits said:Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?
Baggins said:No, mutations may mean that offspring will be born with poor eyesight but natural selection means that this mutation will be selected against and everytime it re-emerges it will purged from the gene pool
I did read your post. You said:SolitarySoul said:No, I don't think you've looked hard enough at my post (I'm not convinced you even read it at all).
Which looks like you didnt even read what I asked you. I asked you what, specifically, is the problem that makes you not accept the TofE. The best I can make of your response is that you believe in evolution (probably the micro flavor) but not common ancestry. The only reason offered is your worldview. I recommended something to look into that may alter your worldview a bit.SolitarySoul said:I believe in evolution to an extent. I believe that God changes us and develops the universe as time progresses, but I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys or anything like that. Again that is the whole point of my post above, I do not deny the evidence out there, I am not saying that they are making stuff up or saying that it is stupid without reason, you just have to take into account the way I vew the world, is my point.
Please tell me how humans and chimps sharing a broken vitamin c psuedogene (broken in the same way) looks through your worldview.SolitarySoul said:I already said I study these subjects and I know quite a bit about them, but you don't take into account how I view the universe.
Yeah, we spoke about this earlier actually. I think the comforts of out modern society can give someone a skewed view of how natural selection works in the wild. Like I said before, handicap people can lead fruitful lives in our modern society but when was the last time you saw a gimpy impala in the wild?Gracchus said:Not necessarily. My brother is legally blind without glasses, but he has children. I know of persons who are totally blind and have children. In a social species, what is deleterious to a lone individual may not be selected against, because of social supports.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:There are some creationists that have been participating in this C&E debate for some time now. These creationists have had every qualm about the Theory of Evolution refuted thoroughly at this point. Now it seems they like to hang around just to evangelize and generally disagree for no good reason.
The purpose of this thread is to ask these resident creationists exactly what problems with the Theory of Evolution they still feel have not been answered. Is there any real reason you still dont accept the Theory of Evolution on its own merits or do you just disagree now on perceived theological grounds.
shinbits said:Okay. Then in that case, the population is gauranteed to never have offspring born with poor eyesight?
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Like I said before, handicap people can lead fruitful lives in our modern society but when was the last time you saw a gimpy impala in the wild?
shinbits said:Even if the allele gets passed on to new offspring?
Gracchus said:Not necessarily. My brother is legally blind without glasses, but he has children. I know of persons who are totally blind and have children. In a social species, what is deleterious to a lone individual may not be selected against, because of social supports.
Gracchus said:Actually, I have never seen an impala in the wild, only in zoos, and in movies. OH! Wait. I used to drive one. But ...
You have the wild terribly confused with our self inflicted rat-race us humans have created for ourselves.Gracchus said:Evolution doesn't know wild from civilized. It is all one to evolution. Even in "the wild", the race is not necessarily to the swiftest, nor the struggle to the strongest, nor the argument to the most intelligent. It is often to the richest, the prettiest, or the best liar.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Our little friend the impala doesnt exactly have the equipment to be a predator. It is pretty good at evasion though. A gimpy impala doesnt last very long in the gene pool when the lions come around.
You have the wild terribly confused with our self inflicted rat-race us humans have created for ourselves.
If we dropped you off in the middle of the conga* the lions, tigers, hyenas, or many other predators wont care about how much money you have, how pretty you are, or how much you tell them theyll regret messing with you.
You will be a few short days (maybe) away from being selected out of the gene pool yourself. Different environments, different niches, different selection pressures.
Dude, Im having trouble enough trying to convey the concept of selection for something as simple and straight forward as eyesight. Lets not bring tools into this.Gracchus said:But when a hundred thousand hunters with rifles come around, the lion doesn't last long.
While this is true it seems to confuse people trying to lean the fundamental concepts of evolution. For the most part the selection pressures that made us (and every other organism for that matter) who we are today were more akin to those in the Congo than those in the legal system.Gracchus said:Even self inflicted, the "rat-race" is a selection pressure. Hyenas or lawyers, predation is a fact of life.
ROFL. Ahh the mental imagery of people being eaten like sausage links.Gracchus said:(*Even I can dance better than lions, tigers, and hyenas, but I prefer the waltz, or even the tango. And the predators would probably go for the one on the end of the line, not the middle.)
I dont know, I understand where you are coming from but by your view of thing nothing at all is natural so its a bit of a semantics issue as much as anything else at this point. I feel that the environment humans have made for themselves is about as artificial and unnatural as it gets. For the most part evolution on this planet was governed by nature and the selection pressures of nature upon the organism. Humans have bent nature itself to our own will at this point. Whether there will be future repercussions, like complications due to global warming, remain to be seen but its not like we hunt for food any more.Gracchus said:And a tiger dropped in times square would also have a very short life expectancy. Drop a giraffe in Antarctica or a penquin in the Sahara. Who wanders from his niche is usually not long for the world. Human environment is just as "natural" as a termite mound.
Again, this is another semantics issue. Unless you take the term concrete jungle literally, what we have created for ourselves isnt exactly wild or natural. Like I said though, I do understand where you are coming from, its just that with the way you are using the term natural and wild the computers we are using are natural and these posts are modern expressions of wild competition.Gracchus said:A human is far more likely to be killed by other humans than a lion is to be killed by other lions. And a lion is more likely to be killed by humans than a human is by lions. So which environment is "wild"?
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?