|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Lyston writes: And then, if you reproduced with this bone change, it would be passed down to your offspring. Your teacher was an eighteenth century evolutionist? How old are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lyston Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 64 From: Anon Joined: |
Er, yes. That's the pro-science Christian view. You'll find a lot of people round here telling you that. And they would add that evolution is one of the things that works.
It's not a pro-science Christian view, its the view of regular Christians who understand what the Bible is saying. People misinterpret that all the time. It doesn't say the Earth is the center of the universe, yet some claimed it did and burned the guy who said the Earth orbits the sun. Natural selection works, yes. Adaptation works, yes. Mutations happen, yes. Evolution? That's what we are debating. Natural selection, adaptation, and mutations are all mentioned and used to support Evolution, but they are separate. The Bible says nothing against those three things, but the conflict is the idea of Evolution as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lyston Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 64 From: Anon Joined: |
Your teacher was an eighteenth century evolutionist? How old are you?
Um, a 2000's Biologist, but, according to you, he is of course a 200 year old man who has lived through the ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I said that because what you were describing is like the 18th century view of French evolutionist Lamarck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lyston Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 64 From: Anon Joined: |
I said that because what you were describing is like the 18th century view of French evolutionist Lamarck.
And do you have something add/change/subtract from my old teacher's lecture on traits being passed down from parents to offspring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And do you have something add/change/subtract from my old teacher's lecture on traits being passed down from parents to offspring? Well, apart from pointing out that acquired traits are not inherited, I should also like to add a little derisive laughter. Good grief, man, that's Lamarckism. That's not the theory of evolution at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eclogite Junior Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
In my opinion for giraffe necks, I think of an example my teacher gave while giving a bones lesson. He said, if he attached a weight on your arm at a high pressure, your bone would accommodate to the weight in time and make changes necessary. The bone would reform in a way that dipped down as the body adapts to the change (this would occur in time, of course). And then, if you reproduced with this bone change, it would be passed down to your offspring.
This is a wholly incorrect understanding. Your teacher should be fired for putting forth an idea that was disproven a century ago. This is the concept of acquired characteristics: that features developed or enhanced during an individuals life would be transmitted to their offspring. Even Darwin considered it to be a possible mechanism for producing variation in individuals. However it is now known to be wrong. There is no means by which the germ cells (eggs and sperm) can be modified by changes to the somatic cells (the rest of the cells in the body).I think if you have such a flawed understanding of the basics of evolution that it is not surprising you think is has errors or gaps in it. Please continue your study of the subject in an effort to remove these faulty ideas. I think then you will find many of the objections you raise simply vanish. Although I am entirely new to this forum it seems that there are some (but by no means all) members who are willing to take the time to explain details to people who are genuinely interested in learning. Hang in there, and ask away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can see dozens of genetically superiorities with such a thing as two heads. It would double fighting chance (if its a fanged type animal) and double food intake, giving more time to whatever. So God screwed up again? He makes rubbish animals, doesn't he? They reproduce sexually, they don't have enough heads ... is there anything this all-knowing creator of yours got right, in your opinion? Why don't you pray for two-headed asexually reprodcing giraffes and see if God will vouchsafe you one? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lyston Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 64 From: Anon Joined: |
You call that a screw up? He made us perfect in His eyes. But then, why haven't we evolved right? Why can't we fly and breath under water? Why only two arms when four would be more useful?
If you want to play that game, answer your own side too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You call that a screw up? No. It is not I who am complaining that giraffes should have more heads. Though I admit that it would have comedy value.
He made us perfect in His eyes. But not, apparently, in yours. This is your cake.
Two choices lie before you.
Why can't we fly and breath under water? Why only two arms when four would be more useful? If you believe in fiat creation, these are questions that you should be addressing to God. If he grants you the wonderous gift of four arms, two heads, and the ability to reproduce asexually, then I for one am prepared to admit that that would constitute a wonder and a sign.
If you want to play that game, answer your own side too. Could I remind you again that it's not me who's making these complaints? However, if you were to ask me why the products of evolution fall short of your standard of perfection, I should reply that the process of evolution, being imperfect, will not produce what is perfect, still less what you happen to think is perfect. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Natural selection works, yes. Adaptation works, yes. Mutations happen, yes. Evolution? Yes, Evolution works.
That's what we are debating. Natural selection, adaptation, and mutations are all mentioned and used to support Evolution, but they are separate. The Bible says nothing against those three things, but the conflict is the idea of Evolution as a whole. So when everything except for the Bible is saying that Evolution works, how do you know that you are not misinterpreting the Bible? I mean, you said it yourself:
People misinterpret that all the time. Have you considered that Evolution works and you are misinterpreting the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You call that a screw up? Don't you see? (reread the thread)... If sexual evolution is a screwup for evolution, as you said:
Self replication, a process seen as a basic process found in the 'beginning', should increase chances of survival. And with its increase chance of survival, how come no animal can do that today? I consider it a genetically superior trait, something that should still be around today in things besides bacteria.
emphasis added you also said it was "some statistical absurd chance". After that you say that actually god is responsible for it, so therefore god has "screwed up" by creating things the other way. This lack of those superior things is the same kind of screwup for god as it is for evolution. But, as someone trying to help, let me inform you that you have gravely misunderstood what the Theory of Evolution postulates. Lamarckian evolution is long gone as it is an impossibility. What the current, actual Theory of Evultion does postulate works fine and doesn't even contradict the Bible. You can check it off along with natural selection, mutation and adaptation. Then we can discuss where you've misinterpreted the Bible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
From your snippet from your link:
quote: Wow! Now that's insightful. But giving a motive for guiding evolution to produce sexual reproduction doesn't explain how it supposedly evolved. This is even more ironic/moronic when one considers the ruckus raised about evolution being guided. Greetings, Lyston. As you can see, evolutionism is still as bankrupt as ever on this topic, and no serious attempt to tackle it is likely to be forthcoming. "Oh, it'd be so much easier for a mutation to put both male and female in one body than in separate bodies - see, problem solved! And you're ignorant and stupid for thinking it ever might be a problem, BTW." That's what you'll get, only much, much wordier. I've always thought the funnier part that even if male and female arise in the same place, species, and time; there's an overwhelmingly good chance they wouldn't understand their new roles. You know, with nothing hardwired into the circuits yet they'd still be out of luck. I notice you've already been "corrected" for not understanding that sex would evolve in a population. Funny part is: mutations happen to individuals. And they don't spread to populations if the individual can't reproduce. But we're too thick to figure that out... Have as much fun as you can. It can get pretty funky when you bring up an issue that they know for dead certain kills their fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CTD, I'd like to congratulate you for being able to show once and for all just how corrupt evolution really is.
Please help me compose a list of aninal kinds on Noah's ark in this thread. My message 25 is the list of mammals so far. Feel free to add/subtract/modify that list as you like. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of the number of kinds on the ark one of these days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CTD (my emphasis) writes: Greetings, Lyston. As you can see, evolutionism is still as bankrupt as ever on this topic, and no serious attempt to tackle it is likely to be forthcoming. "Oh, it'd be so much easier for a mutation to put both male and female in one body than in separate bodies - see, problem solved! And you're ignorant and stupid for thinking it ever might be a problem, BTW." That's what you'll get, only much, much wordier. Why do creationists need to lie and do they do it deliberately, in desperate defense of their myths, or is it self-deception? CTD, if you want to hold forth on a complex subject like reproductive evolution, you'd be better off spending less time wanking over ancient scriptures, written by people who thought the sun went round the earth and who had no idea the continent you live on existed, and more time actually finding out about the subject. Much wordier, indeed. Millions of words have been written about the benefits and costs of sexual reproduction. But in the mind of a superstitious fool, this becomes "no serious attempt to tackle it". Stop lying to yourself, and start educating yourself:
HERE And remember, when scientists don't know exactly how something happened, at any point in time, that does not mean "Allah did it".
SILLY SUPERSTITIOUS ARGUMENTS
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024