• 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

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
If one has survived, then in some aspect he is stronger than one who failed to survive.

Obviously, the fittest to survive is the strongest. So, the survival
of the most suitable to stay alive is the survival of the strongest.
Not only muscles (but physical and mental health, social and
individual skills/abilities) constitute the entire range of
strength of a person: "And from the days of John the
Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being taken by strength"
Matthew 11:12.


There is spiritual, mental stronghold I am talking about:


Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.


Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's? No.
Originally was Theory of Darwin, Darwinian Evolution.
Now it is Synthetical Theory of Evolution.

The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
Originally, the theory was nobel: life is fight for survival, and the winning qualities (like love, compassion, strength, health, long life) are passing to the coming generations.
Now, the theory became changed: the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex) to make us like bacteria or cockroaches with shortest possible lifespan. To make the development faster and better.

Did you say that such a trait is being selected that allows an organism to raise more kids? It is PRO-LIFE definition. Look: the old Theory of Evolution was PRO-Life, now the new Theory of Evolution is PRO-"Choice".

Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution through Selection extend the
average lifespan?
The theory of Evolution does not extend life. Nevertheless, it
teaches how to survive. Is this inconsistency hypocritical? Long
life contributes to survival - personal and collective survival.


Is long life and immortality not the goal of Evolution?
On the contrary, the only value is the speed of generational change.
Look at the bacilli or cockroaches. By quickly dying, they quickly
adapt to any poison specially invented for them. It was the death
that appeared in the course of Evolution.


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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Fittest, survival of the fittest. Not necessarily strongest or most intelligent but fittest for the environment the inhabit.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Let me repeat:
Click to expand...

I.e. fittest.

It helps if you use the correct word as used in the definition rather than replace it with some emotive word that suites your personal sensibilities

And editing your post after the fact does not help
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
questfortruth said:
Obviously, the fittest to survive is the strongest. So, the survival
of the most suitable to stay alive is the survival of the strongest.
Click to expand...

Natural Selection is about the ones that adapt better in the changed environments, NOT about being the strongest, fastest or the most intelligent.

questfortruth said:
Not only muscles (but physical and mental health, social and
individual skills/abilities) constitute the entire range of
strength of a person.
Click to expand...

Evolution isn't just about human evolution.

Do you think organisms, like plants have muscle strengths or mental abilities?
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Obviously, the fittest to survive is the strongest. So, the survival
of the most suitable to stay alive is the survival of the strongest.
Not only muscles (but physical and mental health, social and
individual skills/abilities) constitute the entire range of
strength of a person.



Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.


Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution through Selection extend the
average lifespan?
The theory of Evolution does not extend life. Nevertheless, it
teaches how to survive. Is this inconsistency hypocritical? Long
life contributes to survival - personal and collective survival.


Is long life and immortality not the goal of Evolution?
On the contrary, the only value is the speed of generational change.
Look at the bacilli or cockroaches. By quickly dying, they quickly
adapt to any poison specially invented for them. It was the death
that appeared in the course of Evolution.

Click to expand...
There is only one, and has for ever only been one, Theory of Evolution.
It has been tweaked over the years but has never been changed. Grief Darwin and his ilk had no idea about DNA
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The current theory of evolution has no goal in mind. This is why it cannot tell us the future. That assumption is sort of strange, since the theory of Evolution is also associated with the idea of natural selection. If there is no goal in mind, natural selection must not be based on rational principles. Reason or rational principles are based on cause and affect, which does have a sweet spot or a goal in mind; affect.

What does natural selection actually mean if there is no goal?

Selective pressure, or any type of external pressure, tends to push toward a center, but according to evolution there is no center for this pressure. It appears Evolution is not using an external pressure for natural selection, but an internal pressure, like blowing up a balloon. This creates tension in the balloon. External pressure on the ballon will makes it smaller; moves toward center.

If you look at humans, those who are the most advanced today and most of history do not come from their original place of human origin. These descendant of humans did not stay in Africa. Instead they were part of a migration to other lands. In this case, if local natural selection was not optimized; internal pressure, one migrated to where it was. In this case the balloon expanded due to internal neural pressures.

In terms of the current earth and the mass movement of people, most people are migrating to the USA and Europe, where they can find selective advantages; both natural and manmade, compared to their places of origin where selective pressures are less optimized; third world dictatorships There their balloon expands; urge to migrate. In the new place, the pressure reverses; more advantages, allows movement to a center for optimization; balloon compacts.

Is it possible that natural selection does not appear rational, since it does not take into account the brain; internal pressures, which allows animal to change their environments to where nature has more optimized selective pressures to suit their needs?
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Altfish said:
There is only one, and has for ever only been one, Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat:

Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.
Click to expand...
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Let me repeat:Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. It talked about the 'fittest'; that could be strongest, but it could be best camouflaged, highest, smallest, lightest, best eye-sight, bigger brain, etc.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Obviously, the fittest to survive is the strongest. So, the survival
of the most suitable to stay alive is the survival of the strongest.
Not only muscles (but physical and mental health, social and
individual skills/abilities) constitute the entire range of
strength of a person: "And from the days of John the
Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being taken by strength"
Matthew 11:12.
Click to expand...
Who's talking about people or the kingdom of Heaven? Aren't we talking about the ToE? The Toe applies to earthworms, turtles, ferns or jellyfish, all of which are more successful than humans, and neither strong, sociable or particularly skillful.
The ToE is about reproductive success, and fitting into a particular ecological niche.
Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival
or the strongest's development? The original Theory of Evolution
talked about the survival of the strongest. Still, the modern theory of
Evolution (synthetic one) is only about development; and
the faster people die, the quicker and better development is.
Click to expand...
Huh? Survival of the strongest? Development?

Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's, reproductive success and natural selection. Nothing about strength.
Today's ToE's just more detailed and better evidenced.
The theory of Evolution does not extend life. Nevertheless, it
teaches how to survive. Is this inconsistency hypocritical?
Click to expand...
How does it teach? How is it hypocritical or inconsistent?
Long life contributes to survival - personal and collective survival.
Click to expand...
It's not about survival. It's about reproductive success and generating enough diversity to deal with environmental change.
 
Last edited:
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Darwin's original iteration was the same as today's? No. Originally was Theory of Darwin, Darwinian Evolution. Now it is Synthetical Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Darwin original wrote the origin of species. Todays theory is essentially the same but with gaps filled. Science does that.

Darwinian evolution is a derogatory term invented by funimentalists in an attempt to discredit Darwin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top