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

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Why evolution isn't scientific

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by xianghua, Aug 29, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Actually, evolution has neither.
    Genetics guards against change.
    So does sexual reproduction.
    This is why we have seen stasis in nature for
    the past few thousand years of written history.

    Survive and reproduce is an individual trait,
    not a collective or evolutionary one.

    Counting on something like mutations to drive
    evolution gives you about a 99% road to death,
    as mutations are basically always degenerative.
     
  2. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Natural selection tends to select for those closest to the genetic norm.
    Animals and even insects have mating rituals that must be adhered to
    or the female will not allow the male to inseminate her.

    As for breeding, isn't that just what evolution teaches, that all of those
    specialized organisms would be selected for sooner or later? By chance.

    Destructive forces and limited variation do not equal evolution.
    Otherwise, Chernobyl and Fukushima should be the next Edens.

    Natural evolution should not care about wheels or aerodynamics.
    You should be getting square wheels, no wheels, wheels that don't
    fit on the tracks, etc. Even if you get better wheels in one generation,
    each successive generation has a 50/50 chance of erasing it.
     
  3. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,953
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    You seem to be under the impression that a mutation is expressed directly in the phenotype. Have I misunderstood you?
     
  4. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,028
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Oh rubbish.

    Using this logic, you can bring up anything about evolution you don't understand, claim it invalidates evolution, and then refuse to listen to any attempt at a rational explanation.

    I made it very clear that I would accept evidence against evolution, so long as the evidence was actual VALID evidence and not just someone who doesn't understand it. Your misconceptions and ignorance of evolution do not constitute evidence against it.
     
  5. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Once it has been passed on at least once, yes.
    If a mutation stays in the gametes, you will never get evolution.
     
  6. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,741
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Um..wut?:scratch::scratch:
     
  7. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +530
    Judaism
    Single
    realy? so where is the limit that we can push back the first tetrapod?. give me a number.
     
  8. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +530
    Judaism
    Single
    and your evidence to back up this claim is?...
     
  9. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +530
    Judaism
    Single
    no. you clearly said that you agree that if we will find 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false. so we do find such a case. why you ingore it?
     
  10. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Wasn't that your point about mutations in the phenotype,
    that they can't be passed on to future generations?

    Only mutations of the gametes pass down to offspring. But
    if they remain only in the offspring's gametes, they can't
    affect the animal, other than possibly rendering it sterile.
     
  11. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,953
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    No, the point was to expand on the relationship between genetic mutations and the randomly distributed phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts.
     
  12. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,741
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    No.

    And evolution can't happen unless mutations ARE in the gametes.

    You have mutations in your DNA which your parents passed down to you. Everyone does.
     
  13. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Are you sure about that? What if they were in the half of the DNA
    that didn't get passed down from each parent?
     
  14. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    And again, the program looks for these letters and holds
    onto them. In nature, that doesn't work because each
    step toward a goal is not helpful by itself, and is usually
    detrimental. What good are wings to a bear without the
    dozens of other features necessary for flight?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2018
  15. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    That is common variation within a species and has
    nothing to do with evolution. The DNA of all creatures
    has a range of features which are controlled by, not
    evolution, but heredity.

    Mito.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2018
  16. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,953
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    No, that's not what the theory of evolution claims. What the theory claims is that each step is beneficial in some way. There is no "goal" beyond the very next beneficial step.
     
  17. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,431
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    I have a pretty firm grasp on what GA's are all about, and by extension I have a pretty firm grasp on how the evolutionary process works.

    Yes, I can say with quite a lot of confidence that the things you write, show black on white that your understanding of the process is completely sub-par. Not to say, embarassingly lacking.
     
  18. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,431
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Except that it has both.

    And yet, mutation factually, demonstrably happens. Every generation. In every new born.

    The past few thousand years register only as a few seconds if we represented the history of life on this planet as a 24 hour clock.

    A few thousand years is FAR TOO LITTLE to determine if it is a period of "statis" or not.
    Remember the cambrian "explosion"? That's a period of 40 to 80 MILLION years.

    If you would take any period of only a few millenia withing that cambrian "explosion", it would look like stasis as well.

    It's an individual trait, with effects on the total population.

    Another thing that is just blatantly wrong.
    Most mutations are actually neutral.
     
  19. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,431
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    No. It selects for those genes that are best equipped for survival and reproduction in the given habitat. Yes, it can be the case that upholding the status quo is what gets favored.
    That usually happens in periods of stability, when all species have their niche and nothing much is changing in the environments, in deseases, in natural enemies, in migration patterns, in geological things, etc.

    In GA, this stage is called the "local optimum". It means that things are pretty much "as good as they get" without any easy genetic pathways towards better fitness. This local optimum gets upset real quick when things start changing. Natural selection pressures will change eventually, local optimums will get breached, some will go extinct, others will adapt/evolve further and fill new niches.

    Not by chance. Natural selection isn't chance based.

    That made no sense whatsoever in reply to the statement you quoted

    It sounds like you have no idea what natural selection is all about.
     
  20. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,028
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Because, as has been explained to you already, there is an explanation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...