-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions 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!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Comparing old and new Theories of Evolution
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Again, what's your point? Organisms naturally die -- from natural causes: disease, accident, starvation, injury, predation, &c. Nature keeps a balance. Population reflects the carrying capacity of the environment; nothing revelatory, here.
Human's have interrupted this system. We prolong life. We develop weapons, We farm. We breed and survive beyond the region's carrying capacity, upsetting the balance. Then we find ourselves fighting over resources and territory, adding homicide to our species' causes of death.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If you can't approach things objectively and honestly, then how can you expect people to take your posts seriously?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Organisms naturally die? Here is the problem. In heaven there is invisible to light Dark Matter, on Earth - invisible to eyes Angel of Death -- the murderer.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
They stabbed it with knives, but they cannot kill the beast. It is about Angel of Death.
Pro-life usually indicates a political position. Nature is pro life only inasmuch as the planet's biosphere has persisted for a long time. But Nature doesn't favor individuals, or even species. It's entirely indifferent to death and extinction. Individuals, populations, even species and phyla, die all the time.
And how about r-strategists, that often produce thousands or tens-of-thousands of offspring, and invest nothing in raising them?
A population is stable when an organism or couple replaces exactly their own numbers. Two hippos producing two breeding offspring = a stable population, but most mammals, over a lifetime, produce more than two children, Nature weeds most of them out before they can all breed and increase the population beyond the carrying capacity. That doesn't sound like nature is pro-life in the sense I think you're getting at.
But it gets worse. Most creatures produce thousands of offspring, which nature must reduce to two, or one, in the case of asexual organisms, if populations are to remain stable and survive.
Nature seems positively malevolent.
r/K selection theory - Wikipedia
What are we talking about here, the ToE, or theology?
<<checks thread title>>
If you want to talk about folklore or mythology, I think you're in the wrong thread.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The reality can regulate the amount of people without using Angel of Death. Each time one makes abortion, the Angel of Death comes into operation room. The reality without Death is having varying rate of the births. The varying birth rate is natural mechanism of God. It is not needed to change sex (castrate) a person. He simply will not decide to get involved in sexual activity, if God is against it.
Please provide some evidence if you're going to bring angels, færies or other fantastic beings into the discussion.
Population regulation strategies are a natural mechanism of nature, excepting, of course, in a certain ape that's removed itself from the system.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The monks. The monks are not making babies, but the monks are neither homosexual nor transsexuals. So, no need in assistance of the Angel of Death. He is also Angel of sin.
During the middle ages, monks and priests were famous for being promiscuous lechers. Popes Gone Wild: What the Catholic Church Would Rather You Forget
Come to think of it, maybe things haven't changed all that much....
Come to think of it, maybe things haven't changed all that much....
Fitness is relative to the environment and there are conditions where brute strength might not give a fitness advantage over other traits.
If speed becomes more important, the strongest in a population that are not the fastest will not have an advantage where selection favors swiftness.
Trying to establish a set of physical attributes to define fitness fails to capture what fitness means in biology.
Ah. The funniest was the monk. He climbed up the elephants trunk. Alas, the elephant sneezed.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Typo or intention?
Intentional. But also a typo, was ment to be funni...
exchemist
Veteran Member
It's you that has the problem. English is not your first language. Let me explain.
"Fittest" in the context of "survival of the fittest" means the most fit for the environment, i.e. best adapted to the environment. It is nothing to do with "strength", whether physical, mental or in any other sense. It is best fitted to the environment.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If one has survived, then in some aspect he is stronger than one who failed to survive.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is PRO-life stuff. Not PRO-"Choice".