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!
Folks with a decent amount of Science education.
Same reason the blue eye mutation took over most of europe. The more beautiful procreate before the less beautiful, but is really all in the eye of the beholder. Procreation being necessary otherwise the species dies off and don't get a chance to mutate.
I said I have not come across any. The moment I checked, they came out to be 0.0032918127393172%. Must be even lesser in New Delhi.
needed intelligence to design the originals?
You really don't know all that much about elephants, apes and such, do you?
And how do you know this...?
What does this have to do with this?
If you're alive, it's because scientific advances in medicine.
Uh-huh. Yeah.
Yeah, I know. They do a good job at preaching. Hindus prefer thinking rather than listening. I steer way from preachers because I can preach a hundred times better, though I don't.
Is there a reason why you don't? Have you ever spoken to JW's in New Delhi?
I quoted the wrong reply. OOps. Here is my reply again
You don't understand the "selection" part of Natural Selection, Deeje. It's not random chance.
This is simply hogwash. Where did you get this idea?
Nature's interactive mechanisms are just that -- mechanical, they demonstrate function, not intentional design, and you seem fixed on this idea of "random chance." There is more to Natural Selection than chance. The deck is not reshuffled with each iteration.
When you understand the mechanics, the diversity of life is almost inevitable -- but only if you understand the mechanics.
No it doesn't. Mechanisms of change aren't dependent on how the raw material got there.
No. You're putting the cart before the horse. Life adapted to planetary conditions, not vice versa, and inasmuch as only a planet in the Goldilocks zone could produce a life form capable of these questions, the argument becomes circular. Who knows how many planets turned out to be duds.
I think ADA was referring to the fact that the pharyngeal anatomy of humans renders us uniquely prone to choking.
You haven't really researched this, have you?
What on Earth are you talking about? Humans have always got old and died, just like other animals, and by the same mechanisms.
Yeah, the male duck has something that the female duck likes, and the female duck has something which the male duck likes. Evolution.
What evidence is there that hominins ever had physical, mental or spiritual perfection? You're positing folklore.
The Creator doesn't tell us much about himself, but he tells us a lot about his creation.
It's true. Unlike religious "knowledge," scientific knowledge is always provisional, subject to revision as further facts are uncovered; and in science a theory is not speculation or conjecture, it's a conclusion based on an overwhelming evidence, testing and peer review. A fact is a belief with such robust supporting evidence that disbelief would be obtuse.
This is quite an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence to support this, or is it all justfolklore?
Especially not conservatives and the religious, who seem exquisitely resistant to facts.
Yet human history includes endless religious wars and persecutions. Religion, as often as not, is a tribal binder that facilitates out-group aggression. There's also that curious religiosity in the military -- an institution dedicated pretty much to doing the exact opposite of everything Jesus advocated.
Again, you don't understand natural selection. It's not just an endless series of dice rolls and accidents. It actively selects and locks in beneficial traits, and deletes non-beneficial ones.
Science does not prove anything. Science is a methodology. It gathers and evaluates facts, it formulates provisional explanations, mechanisms and relationships. It relies on solid evidence for everything.
This is so diametrically opposite reality I'm at a loss for words. Science is all about evidence, testing and peer review. Religion is pure faith, unfalsifiable, with nothing to back it up. It actively resists attempts to test its doctrines.
Evolution is fact -- organisms really did change over time, and the theory of evolution -- the exploration of the mechanisms of this change -- isn't a belief system, it's one of the most robust and well supported theories in existence.
Isn't this at odds with both divine creation and the existence of God, Himself?
Come on Deeje. A first year engineering student could produce a better design.
. I don't follow. God-of-the-Gaps is a creationist contrivance. Science has been filling in these gaps for a century, but, of course, every gap you fill in creates two more, so what's your point?
Computers do not reproduce. Organisms are continually mixing things up; producing offspring slightly different from the parents and siblings. This variation is what natural selection works with. It weeds out the less well adapted models and retains the better adapted, who then go on to produce another generation possessing these useful adaptations, the best of which are retained and the less useful deleted, ad infinitum.
Bird's feather -- gecko's feet use Van der Vaals forces, not hooks.
because 'the originals' were just chemical reactions, only semi-alive, with certain features of current life but not the whole package. Once these molecules began reproducing, natural selection kicked in and it was off to the races -- no designer needed.Why do humans need intelligence to copy nature but no one needed intelligence to design the originals?
There is no difference between macro and microevolution. How does microevolution know when to stop, to avoid becomming macro? Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution.
It is both theory and fact -- they aren't mutually exclusive. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
They just designed themselves to be too irresistible to their women? Really?
The world's top designers would win awards for color co-ordination and fashion accessories like these.
These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.
Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?