• 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

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium 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.

You know, it seems to me that your almost monomaniacal obsession with evolution may be the subliminal result of a very terrifying fear: in fact, I think that perhaps many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians might share this terrifying fear .....

I have this niggling suspicion that it may not be so much a fear that God didn't make everything just as it is -- most people get by that one easily enough. It's not even the fear that we might be "animals" rather than some special being outside of natural creation. No, I think it might be the fear that (gasp!) we may have ancestors who were BLACK!

And here's the truth, that evolution tells us. Yes, we all do.

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.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If one has survived, then in some aspect he is stronger than one who failed to survive.

Survival is not enough. One must then reproduce as well. Old women outlive old men on the average, but once past menopause, she is no longer part of the evolutionary process unless she opens a fertility clinic or the like to help other women produce more human beings.

Evolution is about fecundity. The fittest isn't the strongest or the fastest. It's the one that can leave the most viable and fertile offspring, who might or might not be the strongest or fastest. It might be the one with the best camouflage or the largest litters.

Why doesn't the Theory of Evolution through Selection extend the average lifespan?

Because it's a theory. It does nothing but explain and predict. A longer living creature is not necessarily more fit than one with a shorter life. Living beyond one's reproductive years does nothing for the survival of the species if it doesn't facilitate births in others.

Does the Theory of Evolution talk about the strongest's survival or the strongest's development?

Neither. See above. Both answers.

Is long life and immortality not the goal of Evolution?

Evolution has no goal, no imagination, no intention. Only conscious agents have goals.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
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.

Evolution is not a rational theory, since it cannot be used to predict the future. Newtonian Mechanics is an example of a rational theory, since it was used to put a man on the moon. It can accurately predict the future of motion and inertia, based on rational principles.

Evolution has become more like a theory for buying lottery tickets. We know who won the lottery in the past, based on records from the past; lottery ticket fossils. These data from distant past to present, sort of tell us that the present and future will also have lottery winners. However, we do not know where the next winning ticket will come from, or who will win it.

How do you apply natural selection to a lottery ticket theory? What selective advantage did that person have, who won the lottery last night or on any other night? It turns out, one does not have to be strong, healthy, or smart, since the winning was more about chance and luck, and how often you buy tickets.

Since someone did win and someone else will win in the future, we play the game hoping we will be next. We have anticipatory fantasy driving us to the store each day; theory of evolution. There is something irrationally intoxicating about both theories; evolution and lottery, that is not for everyone. I prefer something more rational.

The Theory of the Evolutionary lottery, needs an update, so it can reach the level of reason and not be so connected to anticipatory fantasy and luck. That is not modern science. With a lottery approach even unnatural behavior can win since luck decides. The theory seems to bow down to needs of political smoke, since reason is not there to settle the future.

How do we make the theory of evolution more rational? One useful observation is DNA has proof reading enzymes. The job of these enzymes is to correct improper base pairing on the DNA; fix typos. These improper base pairs are currently the basis for the lottery approach; basis for the genetic changes and mutations.

Proof reader enzymes evolved to help to eliminate or minimize this lottery ticket foundation. Why is the theory still all in in terms of a lottery approach? There are internal pressures; proofreaders, to avoid too many lottery tickets on the DNA. Something is trying to load the dice from the inside; no lottery today. This is an example of natural chemical selection at the nanoscale. The goal is very clear; minimize chance so generic inertia has less curvature; need to go forward and not loop back.

Another observation is some parts of the DNA are much more subject to change than other aspects, which rarely change. How is this possible using a random based theory? What creates the chance gradient? It shows the DNA like a series of loaded dice, based on a definitive hierarchy. The heavy loaded dice always fall the same way. These would be like knowing where the winning tickets will be sold, based on insider information from lottery headquarters, as they ship out today's sequenced tickets.

Counting cards is not based exclusively on luck, but some cause and affect. Such rational systems are taboo in the Casinos, because it eliminate some of the fantasy element needed to drive business.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Evolution is not a rational theory, since it cannot be used to predict the future.
Just because it cannot predict the future does not make it irrational. Matter of fact, the opposite is true, namely that all material objects tend to change over time, and genes and life forms in general are material objects.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Evolution is not a rational theory, since it cannot be used to predict the future. Newtonian Mechanics is an example of a rational theory, since it was used to put a man on the moon. It can accurately predict the future of motion and inertia, based on rational principles.

Evolution is a rational theory, since it's based in valid reason applied to evidence to arrive at sound conclusions. And it does make accurate predictions about the future regarding the kinds of things that might and cannot be found, which is why it hasn't been falsified. The theory predicts that studying related animals can generate knowledge applicable to humanity. The theory predicts that assorted intermediary fossils can be found, and many have been, including pre-human ape fossils. They are referred to as missing links for a reason. A chain of evolution is expected to have occurred and possibly left fossils. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was one such anticipated discovery - something between man and the other great apes, something that came down from the trees and stood up, and became a persistence hunter, but still wasn't a tall, big brained, linguistic tool maker.

How do you apply natural selection to a lottery ticket theory?

What lottery ticket theory? Natural selection is not applied to the theory. It's part of the theory, and it is applied to unpredictable genetic variation. Is that the lottery to which you refer? It's reality, not a shortcoming in the science. Genetic variation appears to be at least partially unpredictable like a lottery, but that applies to more in life than just genetic variation. Earthquakes and coronal mass ejections are also largely unpredictable.

There is something irrationally intoxicating about both theories; evolution and lottery, that is not for everyone.

I guess this is yet another appeal to creationism of some sort by implying some problem or crisis in the science that the scientists don't seem to know anything about. The theory is correct, unless you care to posit that some deceptive intelligent designer arranged the fossil strata and the dozen or more biological nested hierarchies (genetic, cytological, embryologic, biochemical, taxonomic, etc.) to fool man, because that's all that's left were the theory ever falsified.

There is something irrationally intoxicating about both theories; evolution and lottery, that is not for everyone. I prefer something more rational.

Let me guess what you are calling more rational than science - religion, faith. Faith is the poster child for irrational belief. It's what draws you away from a humanistic understanding of the evidence and causes you to try to find faults with the theory that aren't there, such as calling it irrational, or not rational enough for a person who is willing to believe by faith.

The Theory of the Evolutionary lottery, needs an update, so it can reach the level of reason and not be so connected to anticipatory fantasy and luck.

Like I said, the theory is correct. If it weren't, you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands or millions of empirical finds all consistent with it and none falsifying it. So feel free to modify it for yourself to make it conform better with a creationist worldview, but those lacking such beliefs, which includes the overwhelming majority of evolutionary scientists, have no need to do that, and so don't.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
It is PRO-life stuff. Not PRO-"Choice".

In a sense, I see your point. Life strives to produce more life. Until humans came along, there wasn't any choice in the matter. Populations increased and the blind forces of nature adjusted the populations to achieve a balance. For example, if the deer population increased beyond the local food supply, something (starvation or disease typically) would adjust the balance.

Then humans got so clever that they could avoid many of these checks and balances and our population has increased exponentially. If we are to have enough resources to feed us all, we have to limit our own population growth. Abortion is one way. Contraception is another.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Evolution is about fecundity. The fittest isn't the strongest or the fastest. It's the one that can leave the most viable and fertile offspring, who might or might not be the strongest or fastest. It might be the one with the best camouflage or the largest litters.

Let me throw in a real life example.

I was on vacation in Alaska (a cruise actually) and went on an excursion, part of which was observing salmon spawning and dying (and the free meals bears were enjoying). We were shown a structure where the salmon could make their way up into a closed off pool, where they laid their eggs and the young fish hatched. There, they were protected from predators for a while then released back into the stream.

Thus the population of adult salmon could be increased, without changing the natural process. The number of adult salmon is directly related to the number of eggs laid and the rate of survival of the young fish. The baby salmon are incredibly vulnerable to predators, and the salmon overcome that by producing lots and lots of them.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Gravity is not a rational theory, since it cannot be used to predict the future.

Well it sort of can. I predict that if you step off a cliff you will fall to the bottom of it. The fall is in the future of the step.

That's not universally true of course, which is the point. If I use the ToE to predict that a certain intermediate life form existed, and I find a fossil that backs up my prediction that's not predicting the future. Is it predicting the past? Maybe "predicting" is the wrong word.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well it sort of can. I predict that if you step off a cliff you will fall to the bottom of it. The fall is in the future of the step.

That's not universally true of course, which is the point. If I use the ToE to predict that a certain intermediate life form existed, and I find a fossil that backs up my prediction that's not predicting the future. Is it predicting the past? Maybe "predicting" is the wrong word.

It is a form of prediction. One can predict where one is likely to find a specific fossil using a combination of evolution, geology, and paleontology. That was how Tiktaalik was found. More of course have been found since by applying that concept elsewhere in the world. Fossils used to be found by happenstance. Once a fossil was found in one bed people would pay more attention to it and find even more. But I think that was the first time where evolution was used as a tool to find a particular type of fossil.

It was not the sort of prediction that could have possibly have refuted the theory. Not finding Tiktaalik would not have mean that evolution was false, but it did show that the theory could make useful predictions.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I predict that if you breed the largest cows or chickens, from each generation, the average size will increase.
I predict that if you selectively breed the teosinte grasses with the largest seed stalks, you'll eventually get a large plant with huge cobs of edible grain.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Well it sort of can. I predict that if you step off a cliff you will fall to the bottom of it. The fall is in the future of the step.

That's not universally true of course, which is the point. If I use the ToE to predict that a certain intermediate life form existed, and I find a fossil that backs up my prediction that's not predicting the future. Is it predicting the past? Maybe "predicting" is the wrong word.

The word 'retrodicting' has been used. The method is commonly used in astronomy. For example, if an asteroid or a trans-Neptunian object has been discovered and its orbit has been determined, one can calculate its positions in the past and look for the object on archival photographs. Another example is to use modern observations of a periodic comet to calculate the dates of its previous appearances and then look for records of a comet with a similar orbit at the appropriate times.

These are examples of the use of gravitational theory to predict or retrodict the past; they demonstrate that gravity is a rational theory.
 
Top