So I better do some more push ups!!
Sorry Christine. Bad threads make my head spin
NP
Only if you need to follow @questfortruth line of evolutionary thought
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So I better do some more push ups!!
Sorry Christine. Bad threads make my head spin
There are not enough confused smilies in the world to do that.NP
Only if you need to follow @questfortruth line of evolutionary thought
Darwin's theory was a theory of natural selection. We know of many more mechanisms today, and more details, but Darwin's natural selection stands.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.
And that is mirrored by many other theories. An improved understanding of gravity does not refute Newton. No one at NASA said "Oh! Einstein showed Newton to be wrong. We need to use General Relativity to calculate how to get to the Moon and back!!"Darwin's theory was a theory of natural selection. We know of many more mechanisms today, and more details, but Darwin's natural selection stands.
Where are you seeing Natural selection being dropped?
Let me repeat then the question: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
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.
Let me repeat then the question:
The question is nonsensical.Let me repeat then the question:
I.e, fittest
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.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.The question is nonsensical.
I going to stick with the established scientific definition, not your silly made-up garbage.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.
The focus of the idea "man form ape" was changed.
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.
Like about in this video:
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.
Similar to this video:
It's been a while since I read Origin, but I don't recall Darwin arguing for these, except as factors directly contributing to reproductive success. Darwin's argument was that organisms that fit better into their environment, or a particular niche in the environment, tended to generate more offspring, with the trait that conferred the increased fit, thus increasing the trait's incidence in the population. IE: a trait that allows an organism to raise more kids than his neighbors without the trait, the trait will become more common in the general population. That's the gist of Darwin's ToE, and it remains unchanged today.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.
I don't see the change. Of course no population can grow perpetually in a finite environment; and of course new genetic patterns must be generated if a species is to adapt to environmental change. Darwin knew that, and we know that. So what's changed?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.
Let me repeat the problem:So what's changed?
the generation must die (through wars, through COVID 19, through hatred, abortions, and change of sex)
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".a trait that allows an organism to raise more kids
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".
Obviously the biggest and strongest willObviously, 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.
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.
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.