Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#121 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:03 PM

Hmmmmm, no real answer yet?

Speaking of population, why can't we extrapolate the age of the Earth from what we know of the age of man using a recapitulation with population? Wouldn’t the world’s population then, be much higher than it is now?

#122 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:25 PM

Hmmmmm, no real answer yet?

Speaking of population, why can't we extrapolate the age of the Earth from what we know of the age of man using a recapitulation with population? Wouldn’t the world’s population then, be much higher than it is now?

View Post

Don't be so anthro! Population estimates are available for all sorts of plants & animals. Cherry-picking goes hand-in-hand with the principle of limitless extrapolation, so just keep trying different species until you get the result that best conforms to your presuppositions.

Really! :rolleyes: One might never believe you used to be an atheist.

#123 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:03 PM

What and Who gets to decide what we do after we're done "looking"? :rolleyes:

Should we practice our new ideas on third world populations first... you know sort of like an experiment? I pity the person, and the population, that gets to actually see the results of their population control ideals.

View Post



That is the old way - your way. It's no longer the first call of modern science any more. it's a fragile concept.

Modern science *boasts* that it can sustain further growth without bloodshed.

It therefore *requests* your co-operation. Sign the treaties and join the world or let your antecedants face the rather obvious consequences of your God given dominion rights to use and abuse the world's resources.

#124 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:06 PM

...obvious consequences of your God given dominion rights to use and abuse the world's resources.

View Post

Who decides?

Why do I never get these very basic questions answered? :rolleyes:

#125 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:18 PM

Don't be so anthro! Population estimates are available for all sorts of plants & animals. Cherry-picking goes hand-in-hand with the principle of limitless extrapolation, so just keep trying different species until you get the result that best conforms to your presuppositions.

Really!   :rolleyes:  One might never believe you used to be an atheist.

View Post


:lol:




Hey, I like cherries. And I didn't pre-suppose that :angry:

#126 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:41 PM

Hey RobotArchie,

Would you say that human beings have transgressed the law of natural selection and something must be done?

Adam

#127 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:42 PM

Who decides?

Why do I never get these very basic questions answered? :rolleyes:

View Post


The short and brutish answer is that in a theocratic system you don't have any say as they usually use often spurious genetic information to enforce lordship over you via the tacit support of the priests.

The Human genome project is their worst nightmare in that respect. Claims of deity and links to deity tend to show up as plain links like everyone else has. he Plagues of Europe taught us that the encumbent lords are merely the neighbour survivors of a holocaust who moved into the vacant towers of their predecessors.

I once had a a T-shirt which said that 'The Queen of England and I can trace our ancestry back to a primordial puddle of muck'........

#128 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:45 PM

Hey RobotArchie,

Would you say that human beings have transgressed the law of natural selection and something must be done?

Adam

View Post


The 'laws' of science are dissimilar to the edicts of God in that they are the recorded measured observances of natural phenomenon within the gift of men to record and measure...... and to transmit in an intelligible fashion as a source of useful information where the elegance attains a simplicity approaching common sense.

Common sense is not in itself scientific btw..........

#129 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:55 PM

Why not answer the question? :rolleyes:

#130 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:57 PM

Why not answer the question? :angry:

View Post


I don't think he really want's to :rolleyes:

#131 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 19 March 2009 - 02:01 PM

Perhaps i don't understand the framework of the rather convoluted question?

Please try to be less cryptic and more explicit (assume nothing from your culture of me) and i shall attempt to address your problem as you profess it to be as best i see it?

#132 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 19 March 2009 - 06:54 PM

If evolution were true, then the extinction of a species should fit within the biodiversity equation.


It does.

As one group becomes extinct, another rises up to take its place.


If you mean another generally fills the ecological niche, yes.

So according to the “survival of the fittest” model, you are retarding the evolution of one species by attempting to save another on the brink of inhalation


Brink of inhalation? :rolleyes: I'll assume you meant annihilation.

That's a rather goofy way of putting it, but in effect yes. We "retard" the evolution of harmful bacteria every time we disinfect a hospital operating room too.

And this should be considered a hypocritical aberration in the evolutionary worldview. Unless, of course, evolution is just a religion and you are merely covering up the inconsistencies.


No, not at all, because ultimately the species we are trying to maximize the survival potential of is our own. Humans are not special. We are subject to the same basic laws of population dynamics as every other species on the planet.

So -  What animal was a major piece of the ecological chain before the whale took its place?


In the late Jurassic it was the mosasaurs and pliosaurs.

And - What animal are you retarding by saving the whale?


No one can predict - possibly orcas, possibly sharks will adapt to that empty niche.

So, therefore,  your rendition of biodiversity is just a cop-out because it flies in the face of the Glabillions of years of supposed evolution. If biodiversity were the rule, then it wouldn’t be of recent manufacture, but it is of recent invention


A large amount of biodiversity has always been norm, except when major natural catastrophes like the Chicxulub impact severely curtailed it. Each time, it has taken millions of years for the planet to fully recover, and each time a large percentage of species on the planet went extinct.

Humans right now are a form of natural catastrophe for the rest of the planet. Life on the planet won't end if humans totally wreck the ecology, but humans and many other species may very well go extinct as a result, and the whole rebuilding cycle will start again.

Climate change is a cyclical action, and has been observed to be so over our history. + Bovine flatulence and Sheep burps have been scientifically found to be as harmful to our environment as airborne man-made pollutants.


That doesn't make man-made pollutants any less harmful. We control the things we can, adapt to the things we can't.

The blissfully ignorant atheists rape and squander the natural resources of the planet as they please as well (isn’t China a major pollutant today? Aren’t the Japanese still slaughtering whales at will?). So, obviously your nirvana-like future isn’t as sunny as you’d like it to be, because the squandering will continue for the foreseeable future!


Only if we let it. And squandering natural resources certainly isn't limited to one nationality or one set of religious beliefs.

And, you still haven’t answered the question: Why should a materialists care? More succinctly, what is care? Where does it come from? Can you see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, hear it or weigh it? Can you paint it green?

Is it a physical commodity, or a metaphysical commodity?


I did answer. Everyone should care because everyone has a vested interest in seeing the human species survive. Care is the evolved social behavior of trying to protect and nurture your fellow species members so they can live to produce another generation.

#133 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:20 PM

That's a rather goofy way of putting it, but in effect yes. We "retard" the evolution of harmful bacteria every time we disinfect a hospital operating room too.

View Post

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves! Bacteria have rights too you know!

#134 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 02:28 AM

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves! Bacteria have rights too you know!

View Post


:) You are correct Adam




And, along those lines, some posters at this forum have the right to mislead and completely duck the questions too ;)

#135 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:04 PM

I’m the prime example of a former atheist who, after really looking at ALL the evidence, had to finally give into the truth. It was a natural step towards the fact that I could no longer deny the design in this universe.

We are agreed that the Universe is apparently designed.

I could no longer deny that all of this could NOT have come from nothing.

We are once again agreed. Something CANNOT come from nothing.

That my belief in evolution had no answers to the question of origins, and I could no longer deny that. That other than adaptation to surroundings (or micro evolution), there is fact no evidence for primordial ooze to man evolution (macro-evolution).

It is not surprising that evolution provides no answers to the origin of life. It isn't meant to describe the origin of life. The ToE being used for the explanation of the origin of life is akin to using the Theory of Gravity to explain Radioactive Decay.

No evidence that ooze became anything but more ooze and man has always been man.

I don't have any evidence that ooze can be anything but ooze, but I sure have some compelling evidence for you that man descended from a common ape ancestor with our primate cousins.

I had to wrap my atheistic mind around some basic questions:

Why does any of this exist (or why is there anything)?
My atheistic materialist mind had no answer!

There is good reason. An atheist will typically say there is no "why". More specifically, there is no distinct purpose to our existance. They will typically say, our purpose is what we make it. (At least in my experience)

Why do I as a materialistic atheist even argue about anything when I am nothing but “matter in motion”, and survival means I (as a mere bag of biological mass) assert my evolutionary given right over the weaker bag of biological mass. Why even pretend to worry about ethics, morals, love, hate or anyone else’s opinion for that matter?
My atheistic materialist mind had no answer!

Most atheists I have spoken with would say you do such things out of an internal drive to connect wit

#136 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:33 PM

We are agreed that the Universe is apparently designed.

View Post


Not just the universe, but everything it contains as well.


We are once again agreed. Something CANNOT come from nothing.

View Post


I have yet to see nothing, therefore I would heartily agree.



It is not surprising that evolution provides no answers to the origin of life. It isn't meant to describe the origin of life. The ToE being used for the explanation of the origin of life is akin to using the Theory of Gravity to explain Radioactive Decay.

View Post


This is where we part company. You cannot have evolution without origin. Therefore you cannot describe evolutionary process without describing where it came from… It’s part and parcel.


I don't have any evidence that ooze can be anything but ooze, but I sure have some compelling evidence for you that man descended from a common ape ancestor with our primate cousins.

View Post


Having looked at all the evidence (I have seen), I cannot come to the same conclusion. And when I say all the evidence, I include Historical Biblical evidence…

There is good reason. An atheist will typically say there is no "why". More specifically, there is no distinct purpose to our existance. They will typically say, our purpose is what we make it. (At least in my experience)

View Post


The problem with that philosophy (no distinct purpose to our existence) is that we may as well quit pretending, and live like animals. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Fortunately for logic, philosophy, reason, science and Biblical truths, we know that to be false.

Most atheists I have spoken with would say you do such things out of an internal drive to connect wit

View Post


Having had been an atheist, I understand that reasoning (if you want to call it reasoning). But it makes no rational sense. What is an internal drive? Where does it come from? If we are but matter in motion, if our thoughts are but electrons firing across our brains, why pretend?

No, it makes no rational sense to give sentience to a word, or words (evolution/nature). There are things beyond this physicality. So to posit that man is the only beast to evolve rational thought on this planet is egotistical at best and illogical at worst. And yet, to think the physical is all there is, is the rational stunting oneself, and not free thought at all.

#137 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2009 - 10:25 PM

Is natural selection really in doubt?

So I guess a creature that is infertile is just as likely to sire offspring as a fertile one?
A creature that will die early of a lethal disease is just as likely to sire offspring as a healthy creature?
How about a creature with a deformity making it shunned by the opposite s@x of its kind?

Of course these kinds of things make a difference.

#138 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 01 April 2009 - 10:41 PM

Is natural selection really in doubt?

View Post

No. Natural selection is obvious, but it can only work on what is already there. It's function in creation is to eliminate defective lines, not to create new ones.

#139 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2009 - 10:50 PM

No.  Natural selection is obvious, but it can only work on what is already there.  It's function in creation is to eliminate defective lines, not to create new ones.

View Post

I completely agree.

The combination of natural selection + mutations is what allows evolution to happen, not merely natural selection.

#140 Michamus

Michamus

    AKA assist24

  • Evolution babbler
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Camp Blessing, Afghanistan

Posted 01 April 2009 - 11:12 PM

Natural selection is obvious, but it can only work on what is already there.  It's function in creation is to eliminate defective lines, not to create new ones.

We are agreed. Nowhere in the ToE is it stated that natural selection does anything but what you just stated.

It is random mutation which provides the material for natural selection to choose from.

You cannot have evolution without origin.

The accepted definition among biologists of the term "Theory of Evolution" is as follows:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

This is pretty cut and dry. The ToE does not attempt, nor does it imply the initial creation of life.

You are an intelligent person. I am sure you understand that there are very specific theories in the scientific realm that pickup where another drops off. I am also sure you understand the neccessity for common definitions in any intellectual discussion. After all, we wouldn't get very far if I called an item an apple, and you called it an orange.

What is an internal drive? Where does it come from?

An internal drive is an involuntary compulsion to commit an action, be it physical, or mental. An example of an internal drive would be the response your brain provides once your glucose levels reach a certain floor level within your blood. Another internal drive would be the aversion of pain. From time to time psychological, or physiological occurrences can override these internal mechanisms, and subvert them. Brain theory has established quite well what an internal drive is.

There are things beyond this physicality.

What evidence do you have for this claim? Unless you possess a power I don't, I am fairly certain no such evidence has been found. Not at least, anything that can be objectively verified. Bear in mind that I feel that these kinds of statements are a matter of faith.

So to posit that man is the only beast to evolve rational thought on this planet is egotistical at best and illogical at worst.

There has been some interesting research into the sentience of Orangutans.
Link: Ted

And yet, to think the physical is all there is, is the rational stunting oneself, and not free thought at all.

An open mind is an excellent tool. The true art in maintaining an open mind though, is to not let it be so open, that your brain falls out. We still need to exercise rational thought, in these matters. Merely trusting ones feelings alone is a dangerous road that usually ends up in pain for many.

Fortunately for logic, philosophy, reason, science and Biblical truths, we know that to be false.

Do we KNOW these things to be false... or do we BELIEVE them to be false? Maintaining an open mind is a two way street.

Thanks again for your responses, I really appreciate them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users