Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:18 PM
742 online now:
edge, Jon, Louis Morelli, messenjaH of oNe, Sarah Bellum (5 members, 737 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a racist doctrine
Tusko
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


(1)
Message 245 of 404 (807464)
05-03-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Davidjay
05-03-2017 9:01 AM


Just a note on your first sentence here as I don't have enough time to address your second or subsequent ones.

I think it is important to state that evolution is not the product of luck (ie "a lot of lucky things happened and here I stand") but of selection for fitness. So if a population is well adapted and produces a lot of offspring, it will likely be able to out-compete others who are less well adapted and produce fewer offspring, all things being equal. The well adapted population aren't lucky, per se, they are simply fitter. It is expected that they will be more successful. There is still room for chance and luck, but usually the other way round, that is, a fitter population could, by chance, be wiped out by a cataclysm, and then the less fit population would likely survive. But this effect of chance is contrary to the effect of evolutionary processes.

Secondly, I think it is a big leap to go from "evolution operates without morals" to "people who believe evolution is true operate without morals". If I were to accuse someone who believed in Satan of being without moral fibre purely because they believed in Satan's existence, it would be rightly viewed as a non-sequitur. I think the relationship between evolution and "evolutionists" is effectively the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Davidjay, posted 05-03-2017 9:01 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Davidjay, posted 05-03-2017 9:41 AM Tusko has responded

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 253 of 404 (807506)
05-03-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Davidjay
05-03-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Sex evolved ?????????
you give divine animation to selection as if it is a God

I suppose you mean people who think evolution is true imbue selection with some kind of mystical power or something? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think I revere it any more than I revere any other cool mechanism that seems to work, like air hockey tables or cuckoo clocks. Nobody thinks it is sentient. It is just a mechanism.

Please establish how evolution could have ever simulataneously mutated different genders, at the same time magically so they fit together magically and reproduce perfectly as can be seen today.

I don't know how sexual reproduction began. But I don't think anyone argues that it came about by sudden and spontanious compatible penis and vagina mutations in fish or trilobites or something. Sexual reproduction has been about for a very long time, long before complex organisms evolved. I don't find it rouses that much incredulity in me to think of some kind of other reproductive behaviour could evolve into what we see as sexual reproduction.

Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Davidjay, posted 05-03-2017 9:41 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019