Jump to content


Photo

Intelligence Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#101 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:01 AM

Someone has been neglecting their bible-reading. Time to re-read the passage about veggie-meals for all, in Genesis. Though I wouldn't say it's, "out fault for sinning" because what happened if we read Genesis is that God made it vegetarian in the beginning, for all animals. Then quickly after God cursed the ground for man's sake. Death came in and now the system has to have different properties. (for our own sake).

 

Animal killing, etc, was a behaviour that kicked in after the fall. It is a complicated subject really but obviously the choice to not believe God and not depend on God's wisdom, has consequences for the world.

 

If the world was a lovely place with no consequences for disobeying God and heeding the enemy, then what would that say about God? What would it say about Satan's reasoning? It would say that Satan was correct, and that we can do whatever we want without consequences, and it would send the message that we can ignore God and still live in a paradise.

 

Just a question that popped into my mind: are you a vegetarian or vegan of some kind?



#102 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:22 AM

 

 

Mike: Hey Mike,

Can I have my Superman suit back. I think I lleft it in your closet last time I flew in to see you. LOl

 

Only if you leave a steak out for the invisible Goku-goblin. ;)



#103 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:29 AM

 

 

Goku: Just a question that popped into my mind: are you a vegetarian or vegan of some kind?

 

No. 

 

You're not going to accuse me of murder because of that are you? While I don't think it is one of the happy facts about our world that animals are killed for food ultimately I have to trust that God has allowed this. After the flood of Noah God said this;

 

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. - Genesis 9:3.

 

It's interesting that the Lord mentions this after the flood given the pre-flood world we see in the fossils was very lush. Our planet is practically a desert compared to the amount of vegetation there used to be, masses of carbon in the carboniferous, have shown this. Even with great compaction there was a tremendous amount of vegetation. So God now says that we can eat animals. It is obvious that one of the things the flood brought, was a lack of previous nutrients from the now-extinct plants. After the flood God also mentions the seasons for the first time, too. Given we would be food for dinosaurs, personally I think God might have killed them using the flood. I have a suspicion they might not have even went aboard the ark. That's just my speculation though, but would it make sense to send them on the ark given their imminent extinction soon thereafter? (though I don't think such a fine detail would be included in the text, it's likely omitted, God doesn't tell us everything He does, IMHO).



#104 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:30 AM

Don't forget, the fossil record shows us that our present world is basically a desert.

Can you please elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?

edit: This question is answered in your previous post. I have some comments, but I'll leave that for a different time.

 

Can you also state if you agree with this:

Hitler is fmaous in history. It is an historical fact that Hitler and the Nazi's killed 9,000,000 pople (others have done more).Hitler was caused by evolution. Hitler then used natural selection to kill what he thougt were the unfit. The fact that he wa able to overcome them and kill them demonstrate his fitness.  That was natural selectio in action. That was part of evo because you guys claim evolution designed Hitler. Did you forget we all supposedly evolved? lol

and your thoughts on this:

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether

God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals.

So where do agnostics stand in all of this? Slightly below the atheists contingency. Think about it. If we suggest someone does not exist external to us nd then name the being we doubt does not exist as agnotics and alleged athists do it lets me know I may be dealing with a DC (difficult customer). Such a person is somewhat of a contol freak. I would be at a disadvantage in trying to build a frikendship with such a person.

The average person meets 2500 people in their lifetime. We have 7 billion people on the planet now and upwards of one hundred billion people have existed. 2500 is not a very large percentage of people to know. To claim that we know among those hundred 107 billion people who can or can not exist is extremely arrogant! In my opinion it is difficult to justify such a position. If God fairs so poorly, where will I be in their in their hirearchy? If I don't meet their specification I to will be just an expendable metabolic unit. Worse, they can kill me.

 

Can you maybe also answer this question:

Mike the Wiz, who is more fit of these 2:

A: The 80 year old woman who never had children, and never helped anyone with raising their children

B: The 20 year old man who died in an accident, leaving a pregnant girlfriend and 1 year old baby behind

(all else being equal)



#105 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:38 AM

 

Fjuri: Mike the Wiz, who is more fit of these 2:

A: The 80 year old woman who never had children, and never helped anyone with raising their children

B: The 20 year old man who died in an accident, leaving a pregnant girlfriend and 1 year old baby behind

 

How can I tell who the fittest is? Isn't that subjective? The 80 year old woman might be very good looking. Do I get to see a picture first? And also I don't find any men attractive so how can I judge?

 

:gotcha:

 

(I for one am tired of the Hitler discussion, I'll leave that for you guys to discuss. That one is a bit boring now guys, come on, let's leave that one in it's thread). :burp:

 

:D



#106 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 23 June 2016 - 10:57 AM

That is an ABSURD non-sequitur. I could argue that because Hitler referred to the, "greater good" and SAID he was doing good things, that it follows that he was a peaceful Christian and morally good agent because he said his intentions were good. 

 

As it has been pointed out before Christians aren't the only creationists, and in no way is pointing out Hitler's creationism a statement about his specific flavor of beliefs within the creationist label. I'm sure you understand that only Christian or atheist is a false dichotomy, but whenever it comes to ethics many of your points seem to presuppose this false dichotomy.



#107 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:04 AM

How can I tell who the fittest is? Isn't that subjective? The 80 year old woman might be very good looking. Do I get to see a picture first? And also I don't find any men attractive so how can I judge?

Evolutionary fitness...

 

(I for one am tired of the Hitler discussion, I'll leave that for you guys to discuss. That one is a bit boring now guys, come on, let's leave that one in it's thread). 

These are Mike Summers' claims, not mine.

 

Can you also state if you agree with this:

Mike Summers, on 23 Jun 2016 - 2:22 PM, said:snapback.png

Hitler is fmaous in history. It is an historical fact that Hitler and the Nazi's killed 9,000,000 pople (others have done more).Hitler was caused by evolution. Hitler then used natural selection to kill what he thougt were the unfit. The fact that he wa able to overcome them and kill them demonstrate his fitness.  That was natural selectio in action. That was part of evo because you guys claim evolution designed Hitler. Did you forget we all supposedly evolved? lol

and your thoughts on this:

Mike Summers, on 19 Jun 2016 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether

God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals.

So where do agnostics stand in all of this? Slightly below the atheists contingency. Think about it. If we suggest someone does not exist external to us nd then name the being we doubt does not exist as agnotics and alleged athists do it lets me know I may be dealing with a DC (difficult customer). Such a person is somewhat of a contol freak. I would be at a disadvantage in trying to build a frikendship with such a person.

The average person meets 2500 people in their lifetime. We have 7 billion people on the planet now and upwards of one hundred billion people have existed. 2500 is not a very large percentage of people to know. To claim that we know among those hundred 107 billion people who can or can not exist is extremely arrogant! In my opinion it is difficult to justify such a position. If God fairs so poorly, where will I be in their in their hirearchy? If I don't meet their specification I to will be just an expendable metabolic unit. Worse, they can kill me.



#108 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:05 AM

 

 

Goku: As it has been pointed out before Christians aren't the only creationists, and in no way is pointing out Hitler's creationism a statement about his specific flavor of beliefs within the creationist label. I'm sure you understand that only Christian or atheist is a false dichotomy, but whenever it comes to ethics many of your points seem to presuppose this false dichotomy.

 

It is a true logical disjunction, that you are either genuinely Christian, or NOT

 

I don't think it is very intelligent to infer anything from what Hitler said, as though he was a reliable source and a person of integrity. We know that the evil rhetoric he span, was used for the specific purpose of duping people into accepting his regime. 

 

Are the atheists suggesting that Hitler is some kind of morally trustworthy individual, a person of integrity, and we can trust his words? Is it not more realistic that he used religious rhetoric to attempt to justify his actions in much the same way a cult-leader would?

 

I don't think Hitler was a creationist because as I quoted in that other thread, his books were full of evolutionary ideas he implemented in his use of eugenics. I quoted that evidence from CMI. 

 

Can let the Hitler debate die out now, folks? I for one am in favour of unselecting him. I am sick of talking about that repulsive character.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#109 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:13 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Evolutionary fitness...

 

I was goofing around. I remember early in this thread you asked the question, and I read the debate you had over it.

 

 

 

Fjuri: Can you also state if you agree with this

 

Let me see...."I'm fully booked...5pm...wrestle with self-loathing (I can't cancel that again)...6pm, stare into the abyss." - The Grinch - (from) The Grinch.

 

I'm sorry, could you please leave a message with my secretary Miss Goku, on the way out....



#110 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:27 AM

It is a true logical disjunction, that you are either genuinely Christian, or NOT

 

I don't think it is very intelligent to infer anything from what Hitler said, as though he was a reliable source and a person of integrity. We know that the evil rhetoric he span, was used for the specific purpose of duping people into accepting his regime. 

Hold on to that thought for just a minute, while you reread your own words:

I don't think Hitler was a creationist because as I quoted in that other thread, his books were full of evolutionary ideas he implemented in his use of eugenics. I quoted that evidence from CMI. 

 

So, would you infer from Hitler's statements that he implemented evolutionary ideas?

 

Still waiting for your comments on this:

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether

God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

I shortened it to a single paragraph for you. Still Mike Summers' words.

 

Your comment is important in my understanding on what "genuinely Christian, or NOT" is.



#111 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:44 AM

Our thoughts and only "our" thoughts cause our emotions. So we control our emotions not external things.

We often can't control what happens external to us. If we can't control things whenever we try we can frustrate ourselves and might diagnose it as boredom.

Frustration is caused when we try to do impossible things. Usually there is no real need to control "ideas" as they can do no real harm to us. I am givng you insights how I keep me from burning out.

I had a 25 year old male nurse when I was in the hosptal. When I looked at his face, I could see stress all over. I was concerned for such a young man at the beginning of his career. When I sought to confirm my suspicion, he told me he did feel stressed and burned out. I am not burned out after 35 years of being a therapist. This young man had placed himself under self created stress by trying to control what he could not!
I gave up trying to contol anyone 35 years ago.







 



#112 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 June 2016 - 11:56 AM

Goku

As it has been pointed out before Christians aren't the only creationists, and in no way is pointing out Hitler's creationism a statement about his specific flavor of beliefs within the creationist label.

How is this in anyway related to Hitler doing evo's dirty work? Evo is universally true according to the Dawinian argument. Nice try but no!


 



#113 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 June 2016 - 12:08 PM

As Mike the wiz says Hitler was not virtue on legs. He made the famous statement. "Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken!"



#114 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 24 June 2016 - 02:55 AM

mike the wiz wrote:
"How can I tell who the fittest is? Isn't that subjective? The 80 year old woman might be very good looking. Do I get to see a picture first? And also I don't find any men attractive so how can I judge?"
 
Fjuri responded:
"Evolutionary fitness..."
 
---
 
But is evolutionary fitness (or natural selection) really that easy? You or your children might be selected against (killed) by other factors than your genetic setup, is that natural selection? Like a white rabbit running in the snow and just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, while a brown rabbit running in the snow at the right place. Normally one would say that white fur in snow is better than brown fur, but white furred rabbits are killed and brown furred rabbits might survive.
 
So my question is. Can we really judge from a single example if it is natural selection that is acting, or if the death (or the lack of procreation) is due not to inferior genes but to other environmental or chance happenings. How do we know?  Or to take the example presented before: The 80 year old woman who never had children, and never helped anyone with raising their children and the 20 year old man who died in an accident, leaving a pregnant girlfriend and 1 year old baby behind. How do we know that the 20 year old had better genes. Perhaps the 80 year old woman was a mother Theresa type that choose not to have children. Then evolution is hindered rather than helped by her own conscious choices. And the 20 year old man might have had a genetic disorder which dooms his children to an early death. Are there others reasons beside natural selection that makes people die or not getting children?
 
Because if evolutionary fitness is only measured by who survives, then we are back that evolutionary fitness is a tautology concept that is untestable.
 
And then there are the more morally dangerous aspect of this argument. Namely that whoever gets the most descendants is evolutionary fittest, no matter how it is done. Let's say someone in ISIS takes a couple of hundred girls and keep them in prison and make them all pregnant (by force), according to your reasoning that man is very evolutionary fit. But is that due to the fact that the person have much better genes than most other men, or is it something more at play here? 

  • Mike Summers likes this

#115 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:39 AM

Survival of the fittest is nothing more than the statistical observation that those who have a hereditary advantage of surviving to reproducing more have a higher probability to survive to reproduced more. That's a tautology, yes. Its that easy.

 

Evolutionary fitness within that concept is thus a look at the probability of passing on hereditary traits.

The young dead man with 1 child and 1 on the way has a probability of 1.

The old woman who's in menopauze has a probability of 0.

 

The white rabbit, if it didn't reproduce, has a probability of 0 to reproduce.

The brown rabbit, if it didn't reproduce, has a probability greater then 0. 

If his "luck" is hereditary, it'll be passed on.

If his fur color is hereditary, it'll be passed on.

 

The ISIS rapist has a probability to reproduce of 1.

So what if he is "very evolutionary fit"? I don't think anything he does will pass on to his children unless he has a hand in its religious education.

So what if he is "very evolutionary fit"? I'll still would like my someone to stop the man from doing it.

 

You've got to remember: The theory of evolution is descriptive. Nowhere within its text is something about morality found.

Evolution is amoral, not immoral.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#116 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2016 - 06:09 AM

Fjuri,

Excellent post. That's my point. Evo is amoral and is the effect of anything that happens. We can't pick and choose because "it" can't reason. Evo does no have feelings. It can't do wrong. Darwin "created" his theory to act without the need for intelligent input but with one "tiny" imput initially of intelligence. There are no theories that do't have some degree of intelligence input to them! Evo is as evo does! Glad you see it!



#117 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 June 2016 - 06:39 AM

Fjuri, thanks for describing natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution. That mechanism is factual, evolution isn't.

 

Evolutionists are equivocating in this thread with the word, "evolution". The only description that is accurate is natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Evolution itself is not just those things, it is also the invention of thousands of anatomies, by means of the two mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism. An alternative description could be to say, "fiction" added to the facts, that do not indicate that those two mechanisms have omniscient, omnipotent, creative powers.

 

So macro evolution is not descriptive, natural selection is. Macro evolution is flushbunkem, just because the units of evolution-theory are true doesn't mean the whole is true. (fallacy of composition)

 

Example of fallacy of composition: "All of the parts(units) in this plane are none-flying, therefore as a whole, this plane is a none-flying machine".

 

Yes, natural selection is true. Yes, mutations are true. No, evolution is not true and does not describe anything. When we evaluate the anatomy in the body, the design of anatomy describes for us, those features with the correct elements of design.

 

:acigar:



#118 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 June 2016 - 06:49 AM

Fjuri, thanks for describing natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution. That mechanism is factual, evolution isn't.

 

Evolutionists are equivocating in this thread with the word, "evolution". The only description that is accurate is natural selection, and survival of the fittest. Evolution itself is not just those things, it is also the invention of thousands of anatomies, by means of the two mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism. An alternative description could be to say, "fiction" added to the facts, that do not indicate that those two mechanisms have omniscient, omnipotent, creative powers.

 

So macro evolution is not descriptive, natural selection is. Macro evolution is flushbunkem, just because the units of evolution-theory are true doesn't mean the whole is true. (fallacy of composition)

 

Example of fallacy of composition: "All of the parts(units) in this plane are none-flying, therefore as a whole, this plane is a none-flying machine".

 

Yes, natural selection is true. Yes, mutations are true. No, evolution is not true and does not describe anything. When we evaluate the anatomy in the body, the design of anatomy describes for us, those features with the correct elements of design.

Nobody claimed as much in this topic...

 

I'm glad you state that Survival of the Fittest is FACTUAL. Still will clarify things in future discussions.

 

Still waiting for your comments on this:

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether

God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or not is controled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to the other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist in is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists, relgikous fanatics and terrorists.

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals. 



#119 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 June 2016 - 08:31 AM

 

 

Fjuri: I'm glad you state that Survival of the Fittest is FACTUAL. Still will clarify things in future discussions.

 

Of course it's true. But that does not favour evolution-theory because there would be many transitional stages between a progenitor of pterosaurs and pterosaurs, whereby quadruped motion would slowly transition into flight, leading to many imperfect inbetween stages. Of course, there are no such transitionals in existence, and they would certainly not be, "fit" for survival, as natural selection would not choose them. It is impossible to even create a third viable anatomical niche for such a fictional form. For what would that niche be, between walking on all fours and becoming a bat? Why would selection select pre-bats unless there was a forest for maimed, deformed, useless creatures that had no function, where all species agreed to a stand-off, so that they could survive until they evolved flight.

 

LOL.

 

I could think of many such examples, where purported transitionals would be totally UNFIT. 

 

So don't make the mistake of thinking that survival-of-the-fittest would automatically support macro-evolution, there are many cases where it is logical to dismiss macro-evolution because the proposed transitionals would be anatomically useless. There is no way they would be selected for, when a functional limb was on offer, in some other part of the gene pool.

 

What did pterosaurs use their elongated finger for while waiting to evolve flight? Picking their nose?

 

:farmer: 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#120 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2016 - 06:10 PM

I'm glad you state that

Survival of the Fittest is FACTUAL. Still will clarify things in future discussions.

Translation: Everyone that is alive is fit. It's a tautological argument.

Come on Fjuri, would you have enough guts to go up to a nice 80year old lady and tell her she is unfit because she had no children?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users