Thems just modified ducks.
-
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!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
What I find ironic in all of this is the repetition of some form of "science doesn't give us the big picture". The irony is that it is lobbed against the theory of evolution by way of attacking poor old Darwin. And what Darwin discovered and reported is actually the evidence and explanations that give us a better look at the bigger picture. The theory of evolution is a keystone of biology on which much work can be explained and better understood.
As always, creationist views in whatever form they take, traditional or some new syncretic form, are amusingly self-contradictory.
As always, creationist views in whatever form they take, traditional or some new syncretic form, are amusingly self-contradictory.
It says a lot when rats are trying to distance themselves...
LOL! It sure does. They know when to leave a sinking ship.
Improvement? What, exactly, is improvement?
Adaptation to changing environmental conditions, snd variation I can understand. "Improvement" is ambiguous. Life can adapt by either increasing or decreasing complexity, or simply by changing color -- whatever promotes reproductive success. You could make a strong case for organisms being simply the reproductive form of genomes.
We were talking about rats and how they have distanced themselves from me. I made the comparison of myself to a sinking ship.I'
I've never heard of lagomorphs abandoning a sinking ship.
I feel terrible to be so snubbed.
It's OK my little lop eared mate, you'll always be a rodent to us.
Well, let's set the data out.If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?
The solar system, including the sun, the earth and the moon, formed about 4.5 bn years ago.
Life existed on earth about 3.7 bn years ago, and possibly as early as 4.3 bn years ago.
It appears (from fundamental similarities) that all life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor.
As I set out in an earlier post ─
Human evolution goes from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)
to the single cell (Prokaryota) 3.7 bya
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-] 1.7 bya
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria) ›555 mya
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia) ›555 mya
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata) ›555 mya
— Ordovician - Silurian Extinction 440–450 mya
to a backbone (Vertebrata) ›525 mya
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata) ›385 mya
to four legs (Tetrapoda) ›385 mya
— Late Devonian Extinction From ~360 to 375 mya
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota) ›340 mya
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida) ›324 mya
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) ~274 mya
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia) ~260 mya
— Permian-Triassic Extinction 251 mya
to milk glands (Mammalia) ~200 mya
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes) ›160 mya
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria) ›160 mya
to placentals (Placentalia) ~110 mya
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria) ~100 mya
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta) ~100 mya
— Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 65.5 mya
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini) ~63 mya
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes) ~40 mya
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini) ~35 mya
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea) ~29 mya
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae) ~25 mya
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae) ~4.5 mya
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo) ~2.4 mya
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens) 250 kya
to Homo sapiens sapiens.
So you can see that our ancestors separated from the fish line about 385 mya, came ashore maybe 365 mya, became mammals maybe 275 mya, primates maybe 100 mya, then hominids say 25 mya, genus Homo say 2.5 mya, Y-chromosomal Adam maybe 250 kya, mitochondrial Eve maybe 150 kya, and here we are.
The trouble, when we come to God, is that God has no description appropriate to a real entity, one with objective existence. It appears instead that gods exist solely as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains.
But if you can provide us with a real example of God, or a god, then we can check [him] out in the lab.
On what we presently know, IF God is real (has objective existence, can be found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses) and alive THEN [he] evolved on earth ─ since that's the only place life is known to exist.
Everyone especially scientist are not saying this. you have an over atcive imagination to justify your agenda.
Actually, it is more confusing and an odd incorrect view of evolution.
What you have described above has nothing to do with how science considers evolution.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I keep seeing a bunch of words. They look like dead words because they have no meaning. In one breath I'm told the fit survive preferentially and in the next I'm told their offspring are just like average.
This is impossible and flies in the face of everything we actually know about life as determined from experiment.
I'm wondering if it's some kind of doublethink or indoctrination.
It is not only contradictory to known science but it is also non sequitur. If the offspring are normal how do species change?
Unfortunately nobody will answer direct questions so if I want to know these beliefs I'll have to investigate.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Back to word games. Can't have too many word games.
Go ahead without me. I don't play any word games.
You apparently do not just play. You are a professional at word games.
What you have described above has nothing to do with how science considers evolution.
Your overwhelming ignorance of evolution if abundantly apparent..
Unfortunately, you have not asked any coherent questions that actually relate to the science of evolution. A rambling agenda does not count.
You say that others won't answer your questions, but you keep going back to your own use of language with words like average and normal to describe offspring, and then call what you've come up with doublethink and non sequitur.
How does the science actually label the relationship between parent and offspring? Not with those words. Paraphrasing costs you, because your words don't mean the same thing as what you read. As an exercise, see if you can't find the words that you read that reported as "I'm told their offspring are just like average" and quote them verbatim here. Let's look at what you actually read.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
You would be almost spot on. The organism is merely a life support system and replicator, for the genome.
The Selfish Gene, by R Dawkins. Explores this scientific concept in depth.
cladking
Well-Known Member
That is correct. They answer no questions. They lecture and won't even answer questions if they are phrased in their own terms. Instead of answering questions they tell me how I have to ask them.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Lecture? They are not lecturing, for a student pays to be lectured. "We" are responding as best we can, in a genuine attempt to correct your assumptions and misunderstanding surrounding the topic of evolution via natural selection. Your faith in biblical narrative, is a very different system of thought and belief, to that of ours. There is a bridge to gap. It is frustrating for us all...
Agreed. So do Dawkins and Little Dragon. You're probably familiar with the concept of alternation of generations, which is generally applied to non-animal life, but it applies to sexually reproducing animals as well including humans, where haploid gametes generate diploid organisms which then generate a haploid generation.
Alternation of generations | Definition & Examples
You and I have discussed this before. I made no impact. For starters, I don't remember any questions from you except perhaps rhetorical questions, which are not questions seeking answers. And I guess you don't see how your comment applies to you. You "lecture," but don't answer questions. You ignored this question and comment:
"How does the science actually label the relationship between parent and offspring? Not with those words. Paraphrasing costs you, because your words don't mean the same thing as what you read. As an exercise, see if you can't find the words that you read that reported as "I'm told their offspring are just like average" and quote them verbatim here. Let's look at what you actually read."
You also failed to address the comment preceding it, so I assume that you will repeat the behavior
You shouldn't expect to make progress with such habits. You should expect to remain stuck right where you are. To make progress, we need dialectic. We need to each engage the other like meshing gears, where the movement of one leads to an analogous response in the other. That's not what happens here.
Regarding "how I have to ask [questions]," you're being told how to do so more effectively. You need to define your terms clearly. I have no idea what normal or average meant to you regarding offspring, and I don't expect to ever, because you simply won't engage. You just keep posting vague and outrageous comments (was it you who wrote that there is no such thing as intelligence?).
If you want to see different results, you'll need to modify your posting habits. If you're content with the status quo - and your comment above suggests that you aren't - you'll need to change something. I've told you what. What will you do with that advice? Will you consider it? Will you try to understand how it might be right? Or will you continue to flit from one vague and outrageous statement to the next bemoaning not being understood? It's your call.
How about trying something new? How about giving me what I'm asking for to see how it works out? Go ahead and find one of those questions you say you ask but nobody will answer. How about addressing my italicized comment above to you and complying with my request? Or an answer why you think it's a bad idea. THAT'S engaging. That's dialectic. Anything less is just spinning wheels.