Religious Education Forum  

Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!
Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates / Evolution Vs. Creationism
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-10-2013, 06:50 AM
FearGod's Avatar
FearGod Online!
Religion: Islam
Title:Freedom Of Mind
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,454
Frubals: 176
FearGod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsFearGod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsFearGod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsFearGod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinu View Post
Chickens thought, as their eggs are featherless, so their babies might feeling cold inside the egg.
Mutation directed them blindly to sit on their eggs,and the chicken asked itself,what the **** i am doing here.
__________________
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-10-2013, 06:56 AM
chinu's Avatar
chinu Offline
Religion: Stoic
Title:Chinu.
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: punjab
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,052
Frubals: 411
chinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabschinu surprised your frubals with crabs
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearGod View Post
Mutation directed them blindly to sit on their eggs,and the chicken asked itself,what the **** i am doing here.
Not mutation, am saying COLD.
__________________
- All creatures belong to him, and he resides within everyone. Thus.. to whom to say wrong ? as there's nobody insted of him
What is God ? Ans: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...god-clone.html
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:01 AM
apophenia Offline
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 3,762
Frubals: 551
apophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearGod View Post
How the first chicken have such an instinct (knowledge) to sit on its eggs,do you explain it also by random mutation through millions of years,how did they survive till the right mutation arrived.

Chickens didn't somehow 'survive until the right mutation arrived'.

The ancestors of chickens probably didn't sit on their eggs.

There are plenty of egg-laying creatures which do not sit on their eggs.

At some point, in the history of the creatures which eventually evolved into the chickens we know today, sitting on the eggs was a trait which improved chances of survival.

You seem to be missing a fundamental part of how evolution works. Mutations are always occurring (randomly), but most mutations do not prove useful. You can call them 'mistakes' if you like. Or anomalies, or rarities.

Mutations become useful when the prevailing conditions, like climate, change. So for example, if the climate was warm enough for eggs to develop without chickens sitting on them, but then the climate became colder, the chickens which sat on their eggs would be the ones who had descendants - because the eggs which were not sat on would not hatch in the new colder conditions.

The chickens which had the behavior of sitting on their eggs may have been a very small minority until then. But they would be the only ones to successfully hatch their eggs, and so their genes would survive in their offspring. This means that the genes associated with that behavior would then predominate.

This is called an adaptation.

So, no, the chickens were not 'doing it wrong' before - the situation in which they lived changed, and so the variations, the mutations, which suited the new conditions become predominant.
__________________
[SIZE=1][COLOR=Blue]
[URL="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltwhitma132584.html"][/URL][/COLOR][/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:04 AM
idea's Avatar
idea Offline
Religion: CoJCoLDS
Title:Respected Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,110
Frubals: 244
idea thinks your frubals look fakeidea thinks your frubals look fakeidea thinks your frubals look fakeidea thinks your frubals look fakeidea thinks your frubals look fake
Default

Egg or no egg, the ability to reproduce is pretty amazing.
Conception to birth — visualized! Alexander Tsiaras on TED.com | TED Blog
__________________
the truth will set you free
John 8:32
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:06 AM
johnhanks's Avatar
johnhanks Offline
Religion: guess
Title:Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,574
Frubals: 124
johnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the catsjohnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the catsjohnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the cats
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FearGod View Post
The species always do survive ...
Demonstrably untrue. The fossil record shows that the vast majority of species are extinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmortalFlame
... Stop presenting this false dichotomy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearGod View Post
Why i have to stop ?
Because a false dichotomy is a form of fallacious argument, and you do yourself no favours pursuing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FearGod View Post
Now back to my question in the thread.

How the first chicken have such an instinct (knowledge) to sit on its eggs,do you explain it also by random mutation through millions of years,how did they survive till the right mutation arrived.
First, you seem to be picturing a single bird as "the first chicken". Bear in mind that evolution happens to populations, not individuals: populations of ancestral fowl would have accumulated features over many generations that were more and more chicken-like (or more accurately like the jungle fowl domesticated chickens are descended from). It is unlikely that an observer monitoring those populations over a long period could have pinpointed an exact transition to chickenhood (or junglefowlhood).

Secondly, egg incubation is a general feature of egg-laying endotherms: it was probably a feature of the dinosaur branch from which modern birds evolved. Variation in behaviour can have genetic causes; selection would have favoured early endotherms that stayed in close proximity to their eggs, spreading genes that tipped behaviour that way. Once such a trend had started, selection would favour closer and closer proximity, and ultimately the incubation behaviour we now observe.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:13 AM
rusra02 Offline
Title:Intrepid Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 3,363
Frubals: 84
rusra02 hates having to clean up after all these frubalsrusra02 hates having to clean up after all these frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmortalFlame View Post
That's like asking how humans acquired the knowledge to breathe, chew or swallow. There's a difference between "knowledge" and "instinct". Knowledge is not a hereditary trait, instinct can be.
That instinct, shes a pretty smart lady. No, rather, I think it is as Job 37:16 states "The wonderful works of the One perfect in knowledge." Yes, I think that explains it far better than instinct or lady luck, or so-called "natural selection."
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:17 AM
atanu's Avatar
atanu Online!
Religion: Sanatana Dharma
Title:Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: India
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,361
Frubals: 509
atanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fenceatanu stacks frubals into a tall privacy fence
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmortalFlame View Post
And how can you demonstrate that God is the cause of these things when all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin?
...
It's not enough to just say something, you have to demonstrate it.
...
Stop presenting this false dichotomy.
I hope that your goodself will recognise the double standard. You demand evidence yet you assert "....all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin". As if you have perfect knowledge of the origin of life.

I clarify that I am not backing the "Intelligent Designer" idea. Yet, IMO, there is a great confusion, intentional or ignorant, between 'Origin of Species' and 'Origin of Intelligent Life'. Darwin did not theorise about 'Origin of Life'. He was honest that the origin of life itself was an unknown. But he held that the grand diversification of one or a few life forms followed simple rules, as desribed in 'Origin of Species' .

An excellent post on this is cited below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...17-post22.html

Aum shanti
__________________
That which is not uttered by speech, that by which the word is expressed, know That alone to be Brahman, and not this which is being worshipped.
...

Last edited by atanu; 04-10-2013 at 07:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:42 AM
johnhanks's Avatar
johnhanks Offline
Religion: guess
Title:Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,574
Frubals: 124
johnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the catsjohnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the catsjohnhanks stuffs frubals into couch cushions, along with the cats
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02 View Post
That instinct, shes a pretty smart lady. No, rather, I think it is as Job 37:16 states "The wonderful works of the One perfect in knowledge." Yes, I think that explains it far better than instinct or lady luck, or so-called "natural selection."
I see you haven't given up on the good old 'argument from personal incredulity', rusra.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:49 AM
apophenia Offline
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 3,762
Frubals: 551
apophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubalsapophenia almost drowned in a desparate bid to win bobbing for frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atanu View Post
I hope that your goodself will recognise the double standard. You demand evidence yet you assert "....all of them have a perfectly viable non-God related origin". As if you have perfect knowledge of the origin of life.

I clarify that I am not backing the "Intelligent Designer" idea. Yet, IMO, there is a great confusion, intentional or ignorant, between 'Origin of Species' and 'Origin of Intelligent Life'. Darwin did not theorise about 'Origin of Life'. He was honest that the origin of life itself was an unknown. But he held that the grand diversification of one or a few life forms followed simple rules, as desribed in 'Origin of Species' .

An excellent post on this is cited below:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...17-post22.html

Aum shanti
Good link.

Darwin had some real humility.

This is why I reject sruti. Or the quran, the Bible or any so-called 'revealed text'.

You (I) really don't know anything about the Big Bang or the Vaikuntha planets or Allah or The Absolute. All of that is fabrication.

And you (I) don't know that someone else knew.

That is all supposition and poetry (and manipulation) in all honesty.

Your (my) 'experience' which you ( not I) call 'God' is just that - your (my) experience.

Conflating that experience with ancient texts is arbitrary association, and entirely unnecessary. And, useless.
__________________
[SIZE=1][COLOR=Blue]
[URL="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltwhitma132584.html"][/URL][/COLOR][/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-10-2013, 07:52 AM
rusra02 Offline
Title:Intrepid Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 3,363
Frubals: 84
rusra02 hates having to clean up after all these frubalsrusra02 hates having to clean up after all these frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhanks View Post
I see you haven't given up on the good old 'argument from personal incredulity', rusra.
I call it personal common sense and following the evidence. (Hebrews 3:4)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Copyright 2014 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.