• 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.

Why do you reject evolution

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
To those of you who believe in Evolution, answer me this question which has failed to receive a solid answer yet:

If evolution is correct, then by its reasoning, animals who have evolved or become extinct can never be reintroduced into the earth unless it implies survival. (so a green color in animals may go and come back based on survival needs, but an australian toad (just a random hypothetical animal if it doesn't exist) can never be "reintroduced" as the same species again. once gone, always gone, but the genes may be reintroduced.) Well, then if apes and humans have a common ancestor, why are there apes AND humans, didn't we evolve from the same ancestor? wouldn't look a little more the same considering only the slightest changes happen over the longest of billennia (billion's form of "millennia") needed for evolution? and please cite from a credible source.

Because you don't understand evolution. It's the same reason that no one can have living parents, because if they descended from their parents than how can their parents still be alive? If you and your brother share a common ancestor, how can you and your brother still be alive? If the Bible is true, how come the moon isn't made of green cheese?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianT

Newbie Orthodox
Nov 4, 2011
2,059
89
Somewhere in God's Creation.
✟25,331.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
sorry, I meant monkeys. My brain replaced it with apes as it did even while writing this.

Humans are apes... Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are you even asking?

why are there monkeys and humans on earth today if we evolved? wouldn't one or neither of us exist under the theory of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianT

Newbie Orthodox
Nov 4, 2011
2,059
89
Somewhere in God's Creation.
✟25,331.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Because you don't understand evolution. It's the same reason that no one can have living parents, because if they descended from their parents than how can their parents still be alive? If you and your brother share a common ancestor, how can you and your brother still be alive? If the Bible is true, how come the moon isn't made of green cheese?

evolution happens over long periods of time, not to one living thing (it happens to the whole species, not one organism), so the brother, parent analogy is flawed, and what in the universe does the Bible have to do with you wanting the moon to be made of green cheese? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
sorry, I meant monkeys. My brain replaced it with apes as it did even while writing this.



why are there monkeys and humans on earth today if we evolved? wouldn't one or neither of us exist under the theory of evolution?

No, there is no reason in evolution for species to die out in that fashion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
evolution happens over long periods of time, not to one living thing (it happens to the whole species, not one organism), so the brother, parent analogy is flawed, and what in the universe does the Bible have to do with you wanting the moon to be made of green cheese? :confused:

As far as I can see, same thing the theory of evolution has to do with any of your questions.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
why are there monkeys and humans on earth today if we evolved? wouldn't one or neither of us exist under the theory of evolution?

Your question makes no sense, but perhaps the answer to it is that there is more than one type of environment. *Wonders how long you'd last swinging/jumping from branch to branch*
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Oh, I think I figured out what you're trying to say. For example, if a hominid in the savannahs of Africa learns to use stone tools, then the Natural Selection Enforcer goes and tracks down all the primates even if they're living in the rain forests of Brazil, and kills them off because the tool-using hominid is better? It doesn't work that way; evolution may be what we call a change in the genetics of a population, but it still occurs individual by individual and population by population. If populations are not sufficiently connected, they will evolve separately and can end up as different species even if they were the same before.
 
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am returning to a point in our little debate of ours to stimulate debate. I feel I went down a rabbit trail and never got back on my original thoughts.

Back to Chris4243's post on page 3 telling me evolution is populations changing over time. I have problems.

First, weather entire populations or one animal changes is not the issue. It still contradicts DNA mutation.

To say populations evolve still requires DNA mutations, right? Well,my previous DNA discourse still holds. There is still the horribly small chance of it all. mRNA mutations don't occur all at once. You will see mutations. But not at this level. Even if it was overtime like you say, the DNA strand would become so mutated by these slow mutations that the animal would die! The DNA strand would become choked by the mutations.

Onto natural selection! You have given no actual evidence for natural selection. It seems to me like a phrase attributed to a good mutation. Much like Adam Smith's "invisible Hand" I assume. Well, its not a real thing, its a description. Natural selection has no rational thought behind it, it is a description of something. If I say a piece of wood is red, the fact that I described it as red did not originally make the block of wood red. The paint or natural colors made it red. Description does not make fact. That is why the earth isn't the center of the universe. A description does not make fact. Therefore, natural selection can't make things happen. It can't distinguish between "good mutation" and "bad mutation" as it is a description. The invisible hand can't make distinctions. We make those distinctions and say,"The invisible hand gives a thumbs up!", or in this case,"Natural Selection gives a thumbs up!" It is not up to natural selection to determine what is good. It is merely a description.

So, natural selection has no relevance in evolution other than to describe meaningful mutations. Therefore, my argument of DNA mutations stands.
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I am returning to a point in our little debate of ours to stimulate debate. I feel I went down a rabbit trail and never got back on my original thoughts.

Back to Chris4243's post on page 3 telling me evolution is populations changing over time. I have problems.

First, weather entire populations or one animal changes is not the issue. It still contradicts DNA mutation.

To say populations evolve still requires DNA mutations, right? Well,my previous DNA discourse still holds. There is still the horribly small chance of it all. mRNA mutations don't occur all at once. You will see mutations. But not at this level. Even if it was overtime like you say, the DNA strand would become so mutated by these slow mutations that the animal would die! The DNA strand would become choked by the mutations.

kyonfacepalm.jpg


Except, obviously not. Individual organisms do not evolve. I don't know why you are talking about animals dying in regards to mutations.

Onto natural selection! You have given no actual evidence for natural selection. It seems to me like a phrase attributed to a good mutation. Much like Adam Smith's "invisible Hand" I assume. Well, its not a real thing, its a description. Natural selection has no rational thought behind it, it is a description of something. If I say a piece of wood is red, the fact that I described it as red did not originally make the block of wood red. The paint or natural colors made it red. Description does not make fact. That is why the earth isn't the center of the universe. A description does not make fact. Therefore, natural selection can't make things happen. It can't distinguish between "good mutation" and "bad mutation" as it is a description. The invisible hand can't make distinctions. We make those distinctions and say,"The invisible hand gives a thumbs up!", or in this case,"Natural Selection gives a thumbs up!" It is not up to natural selection to determine what is good. It is merely a description.

Do I seriously need to prove to you that a more biologically fit animal is going to have more sex and make more babies than inferior specimens?

So, natural selection has no relevance in evolution other than to describe meaningful mutations. Therefore, my argument of DNA mutations stands.

Your argument doesn't make sense, you don't seem to understand that said mutations occur in meiosis and fertilization.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
kyonfacepalm.jpg

Except, obviously not. Individual organisms do not evolve.
I'm going to be frank with you. If individual organism never evolved, even while they are in groups, then no DNA mutations would ever occur. No mutations would come. No variant species would ever come. Hybrids don't occur anymore because according to you, DNA never mutates! Somehow, different animals come, but apparently not through mutations! So, could you describe to me how this happens???

Do I seriously need to prove to you that a more biologically fit animal is going to have more sex and make more babies than inferior specimens?
Two problems. First, if we are more biologically fit than monkeys, why don't we procreate more? If we are more advanced than dogs and cats, why don't we make thousands of babies in one go-around? Hmmm? Second, your logic makes no sense. If a more biologically fit organism is better, then it needs not procreate more! Surely natural selection knows that this organism can love longer and not need procreation!

Your argument doesn't make sense, you don't seem to understand that said mutations occur in meiosis and fertilization.
No, I do know that is where mutations come from. Its a mess up in the DNA replication process. I know this. And my argument does make sense. Considering I posted my argument, and you posted your reply in less than a minute, I would say you have not read it thoroughly enough.
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm going to be frank with you. If individual organism never evolved, even while they are in groups, then no DNA mutations would ever occur. No mutations would come. No variant species would ever come. Hybrids don't occur anymore because according to you, DNA never mutates! Somehow, different animals come, but apparently not through mutations! So, could you describe to me how this happens???

Have you really never heard of sex? You are 17.

Cell Division, Meiosis - YouTube

Jesus wept. :doh:

Two problems. First, if we are more biologically fit than monkeys, why don't we procreate more?

Have you heard of anyone even trying to breed with monkeys recently?

If we are more advanced than dogs and cats, why don't we make thousands of babies in one go-around? Hmmm?

Because that wouldn't be biologically fit. A population explosion over the carrying capacity leads to no food, which leads to mass starvation. Do you even think before suggesting these things?

Second, your logic makes no sense. If a more biologically fit organism is better, then it needs not procreate more! Surely natural selection knows that this organism can love longer and not need procreation!

Love longer? What are you talking about now? :doh:

No, I do know that is where mutations come from.

No, you don't. You just demonstrated you don't even know how babies are made at the beginning of this post.

Its a mess up in the DNA replication process. I know this.

In Meiosis, for Pete's sake.

And my argument does make sense. Considering I posted my argument, and you posted your reply in less than a minute, I would say you have not read it thoroughly enough.

No, I just paid attention in biology and sex ed and know that mutations in an organisms DNA doesn't contribute to evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
For the record, I do know what sex is, and I have taken Biology and I am now taking a college level course in human anatomy and physiology. I know my stuff. Maybe not as well as some, but I think I have more than a absic understanding of it.

Secondly, you yourself said that,

"Do I seriously need to prove to you that a more biologically fit animal is going to have more sex and make more babies than inferior specimens?"

Therefore, according to you, more biologically fit animals are going to have more sex and make more babies.

Love longer? What are you talking about now? :doh:
Sorry, misspelling. It was meant to be "live longer". Sorry for that.

In Meiosis, for Pete's sake.
Oh, I'm sorry for using the description of meiosis in my response. Next time, I'll make sure I use as few words as possible rather than give a full explanation of what I believe. DNA replication is part of meiosis.

No, I just paid attention in biology and sex ed and know that mutations in an organisms DNA doesn't contribute to evolution.

Well what does then? If DNA never evolves, what does to make physical changes?
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
For the record, I do know what sex is, and I have taken Biology and I am now taking a college level course in human anatomy and physiology. I know my stuff. Maybe not as well as some, but I think I have more than a absic understanding of it.

You're in college-level intro bio and you think that mutations accumulated by an individual over its lifetime factor into evolution.

Secondly, you yourself said that,

"Do I seriously need to prove to you that a more biologically fit animal is going to have more sex and make more babies than inferior specimens?"

Therefore, according to you, more biologically fit animals are going to have more sex and make more babies.

In comparison to other individuals in their own species! ^_^

Sorry, misspelling. It was meant to be "live longer". Sorry for that.

Why you think biological fitness means living longer is beyond me.

Oh, I'm sorry for using the description of meiosis in my response. Next time, I'll make sure I use as few words as possible rather than give a full explanation of what I believe. DNA replication is part of meiosis.

I'm relieved we have gotten to that point.

Well what does then? If DNA never evolves, what does to make physical changes?

The DNA changes in sperm and ova. You know, haploid gametes?

sperm_2_.gif
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Dear Aeneas,

So far, I do not understand you. And you have yet to answer my question. Where does evolution occur? More specifically, if not in DNA, then where? And if you say that it occurs in populations, how does it occur inpopulations. Not what makes it happen, but the actual mechanics of it all.
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Dear Aeneas,

So far, I do not understand you. And you have yet to answer my question. Where does evolution occur?

In species.

More specifically, if not in DNA, then where?[/quote]

I've told you ad naseum that DNA mutation is involved.

And if you say that it occurs in populations, how does it occur inpopulations. Not what makes it happen, but the actual mechanics of it all.

Ok, first, one animal makes a sperm.

Another animal makes an egg.

In oogenesis and spermatogenesis, mutations happen.

They have hot, sweaty sex.

X months later, baby is born.

Now baby inherited all these mutations from mommy and daddy: some of them might change nothing, others might change tiny things like hair composition, while others might change very big things like the shape of the blood cells.

Following so far?

Now here's the tricky part: all those changes mean the baby animal will interact differently with the environment.

A baby animal with a mutation that makes the cells that form blood vessels stronger might be able to get more blood to the brain. That might make the baby animal smarter!

Or a baby might be born with osteogenesis imperfecta:
12441-0550x0475.jpg


Baby animals with mutations that do things like make their bones shatter like dried-out twigs probably are going to have a hard time.

How sad.

Now, here's the thing, if a baby animal is smarter than everyone else because of that lucky mutation, when the wolves come to eat the baby animal and its friends, that baby animal is going to be smarter and figure it out! And he'll know to run away while the wolves tear out his dummy friends' throats!

Hurray!

And if the same thing happens to the baby animal with the bad bones, it will attempt to run, but trying to run is going to shatter all the poor legs in the baby animal's legs and it will die horribly as wolves tear it apart.

Oh no!

Now because things like that happen, all the animals with the bad mutations die, the animals that survive are going to be those with neutral mutations or the really smart animals with the helpful mutations!

Then, when the baby animals are all grown up, and find other boy and girl animals attractive, they'll have SEX. Then they'll have BABIES.

And because having brittle bones is difficult, the ones with the bad mutations that survived the wolves are going to be beaten up by the animals with the good mutations, and they will probably not get to have babies! So sad!

As this goes over generations and generation, the animals with nice mutations have more babies compared to animals without the mutation, until most of the population has an ancestor with this mutation, and eventually EVERYONE has it.


Hurray Evolution!

:sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are contradicting yourself. First you say(and mistake me if I have misread your comment),"you think that mutations accumulated by an individual over its lifetime factor into evolution. " What I read is that you seem to think that DNA mutation has nothing to do with evolution. You even said individual organisms don't evolve!

Now you say that individual organisms do evolve. So which is it? You keep saying stuff like "natural selection", then ramble on how the changes are lucky. You also keep asserting my intelligence. You have danced around so many of my questions, all the while contradicting yourself. Seriously, I'm almost at the point where I will no longer respond to you. Your views are contradictory to what you said in the previous post! Unless you get your act together, I'm done.
 
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You are contradicting yourself. First you say(and mistake me if I have misread your comment),"you think that mutations accumulated by an individual over its lifetime factor into evolution. "

Do you not understand what I meant by "You think" in that statement?

hint: I wasn't describing what I believe.

What I read is that you seem to think that DNA mutation has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you trolling me? How many times do I have to correct this?

You even said individual organisms don't evolve!

Thank God we're finally making progress.


Now you say that individual organisms do evolve.

Now I know you aren't taking this seriously. I have never said that individual organisms evolve. Frankly, if are just going to ignore me when repeatedly say individual animals do not evolve, then there's no point.

So which is it?

Populations evolve, not individuals.

You keep saying stuff like "natural selection", then ramble on how the changes are lucky.

That rambling is called "biology". You claim to be in a college level class in it but do not understand basic Mandelian inheritance.

You also keep asserting my intelligence.

Only if you have decided to identify yourself as the "baby animal" I gave in a made up story. ^_^

You have danced around so many of my questions, all the while contradicting yourself. Seriously, I'm almost at the point where I will no longer respond to you. Your views are contradictory to what you said in the previous post! Unless you get your act together, I'm done.

Give me a break, I haven't contradicted myself in the slightest. You claim to be in a high school level class but don't understand basic Mendelian inheritance.

Here's the deal: Evolution refers to the change in genotype over time in a population due to variable fitness caused by mutations.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Even if it was overtime like you say, the DNA strand would become so mutated by these slow mutations that the animal would die!

Onto natural selection! You have given no actual evidence for natural selection.

So if I understand what you're saying, mutations to the DNA strand can kill an animal and there is no evidence that some animals are more genetically fit than others. Maybe you should think about that a little more.

It seems to me like a phrase attributed to a good mutation. Much like Adam Smith's "invisible Hand" I assume. Well, its not a real thing, its a description. Natural selection has no rational thought behind it, it is a description of something. If I say a piece of wood is red, the fact that I described it as red did not originally make the block of wood red. The paint or natural colors made it red. Description does not make fact. That is why the earth isn't the center of the universe. A description does not make fact. Therefore, natural selection can't make things happen. It can't distinguish between "good mutation" and "bad mutation" as it is a description. The invisible hand can't make distinctions. We make those distinctions and say,"The invisible hand gives a thumbs up!", or in this case,"Natural Selection gives a thumbs up!" It is not up to natural selection to determine what is good. It is merely a description.

Right, some animals die and others don't, and we call that natural selection. It would still happen if we called it something else or didn't call it anything.

So, natural selection has no relevance in evolution other than to describe meaningful mutations. Therefore, my argument of DNA mutations stands.

No natural selection works on all the DNA, not just recent mutations. If the environment changes, the fitness of various pre-existing genotypes will also change and some will be favored over others by the fact of natural selection (the death of the less adapted).
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Two problems. First, if we are more biologically fit than monkeys, why don't we procreate more? If we are more advanced than dogs and cats, why don't we make thousands of babies in one go-around? Hmmm?

Because we're a k-selected species rather than an r-selected species.

Second, your logic makes no sense. If a more biologically fit organism is better, then it needs not procreate more! Surely natural selection knows that this organism can love longer and not need procreation!

Natural selection knows nothing, it is merely a description of how some animals live or die, reproduce or not. The official measure is the number of surviving offspring.
 
Upvote 0

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
31
United States of America
✟26,461.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, I just paid attention in biology and sex ed and know that mutations in an organisms DNA doesn't contribute to evolution.

I've told you ad naseum that DNA mutation is involved.

Ok, first, one animal makes a sperm.

Another animal makes an egg.

In oogenesis and spermatogenesis, mutations happen.

They have hot, sweaty sex.

X months later, baby is born.

Now baby inherited all these mutations from mommy and daddy: some of them might change nothing, others might change tiny things like hair composition, while others might change very big things like the shape of the blood cells.

Following so far?

Now here's the tricky part: all those changes mean the baby animal will interact differently with the environment.

A baby animal with a mutation that makes the cells that form blood vessels stronger might be able to get more blood to the brain. That might make the baby animal smarter!

Or a baby might be born with osteogenesis imperfecta:
12441-0550x0475.jpg


Baby animals with mutations that do things like make their bones shatter like dried-out twigs probably are going to have a hard time.

How sad.

Now, here's the thing, if a baby animal is smarter than everyone else because of that lucky mutation, when the wolves come to eat the baby animal and its friends, that baby animal is going to be smarter and figure it out! And he'll know to run away while the wolves tear out his dummy friends' throats!

Hurray!

And if the same thing happens to the baby animal with the bad bones, it will attempt to run, but trying to run is going to shatter all the poor legs in the baby animal's legs and it will die horribly as wolves tear it apart.

Oh no!

Now because things like that happen, all the animals with the bad mutations die, the animals that survive are going to be those with neutral mutations or the really smart animals with the helpful mutations!

Then, when the baby animals are all grown up, and find other boy and girl animals attractive, they'll have SEX. Then they'll have BABIES.

And because having brittle bones is difficult, the ones with the bad mutations that survived the wolves are going to be beaten up by the animals with the good mutations, and they will probably not get to have babies! So sad!

As this goes over generations and generation, the animals with nice mutations have more babies compared to animals without the mutation, until most of the population has an ancestor with this mutation, and eventually EVERYONE has it.


Hurray Evolution!

:sigh:

Contradictory statements. First you say DNA mutations do not contribute to evolution. In your second post, you say it does. Which is it?

Do you not understand what I meant by "You think" in that statement?

hint: I wasn't describing what I believe.
So what do you believe?

Are you trolling me? How many times do I have to correct this?
I'm not trolling, but it feels like you are.

Now I know you aren't taking this seriously. I have never said that individual organisms evolve. Frankly, if are just going to ignore me when repeatedly say individual animals do not evolve, then there's no point.

I refer you back to the the second quote I posted on here. You gave an example of an individual organism evolving to have larger blood cells and therefore oxygenate the brain more. Therefore, you said that individual organisms evolve(maybe not in exact words, but your example screamed that).

Populations evolve, not individuals.
So far, you haven't shown me how an entire population evolves without any of the individual organisms evolving.

That rambling is called "biology". You claim to be in a college level class in it but do not understand basic Mandelian inheritance.

Mendelian inheritance- Plant 1 has big peas. Plant 2 has little peas. Mate plant 1 and plant 2 together, and whichever has the dominant trait is the offspring's trait. This can be seen through a Punnet Square. Wow, I do know my stuff! ;)

Give me a break, I haven't contradicted myself in the slightest. You claim to be in a high school level class but don't understand basic Mendelian inheritance.

Apparently, I have.

Here's the deal: Evolution refers to the change in genotype over time in a population due to variable fitness caused by mutations.

Exactly. So individuals have to evolve. While this may happen at a population level, individuals have to evolve.
 
Upvote 0