Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chicken Bone
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 27 (418201)
08-26-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 10:34 PM


Re: On topic
quote:
Random natural processes can't adequately explain this.
What about random mutations selected by the environment?
Why do creationists ignore selection all the time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 10:34 PM Ihategod has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 27 (418210)
08-26-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 10:51 PM


Re: selected
quote:
I don't ignore mutations. I just have beef with the "selection" process.
Doesn't selecting something infer intelligence?
Not at all.
quote:
What is selecting what?
The environmental conditions into which an organism is born consists of selective pressures that act upon those organisms. For example, in a cold environment, an individual born with a slightly thicker undercoat is likely to reproduce more successfully than other individuals in that population with a thinner undercoat. If more of the thicher coated individuals survive to also reproduce, then a thicker coat tends to spread throughout the population. The thinner coats will become less numerous. And so on.
By the way, the thin coat can become an advantage if the environment becomes warmer, so the entire process can, and has been observed to go the other way if the environmental pressures push it thus.
quote:
If mutations were random then there would be no need for a selection process.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense to me.
quote:
Mutations in my theory come from a sinful nature coupled with close relationships like intermarriage.
Everyone on the planet is born with at least several mutations.
I also think you believe that mutations are always detrimental. Of course, they are not. Most mutations are neutral, as in they don't affect reproductive success. Some are detrimental, and most of those get weeded out of the population, obviously. A few are beneficial, and those spread throughout the population.
It seems to me that you don't really understand much about what Biologists, rather than anti-science religious people, consider the ToE to actually be.
Furthermore, if you think the ToE is bunk, then what do you think of the hundreds of thousands of Biologists and other scientists over the last 150 or so years who have used the ToE as the foundational theory of their fields?
Are they, to a person, incompetent scientists? Deluded? Engaged in a protracted, elaborate conspiracy? Complete dunderheads?
I'd like to get your perspective on this issue, but not here, as it would be off topic. Happily, there is an existing thread that deals with this very thing
here. See you there!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 10:51 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:22 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024