Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why 4.1? Was 4.0 not beat to death and the great beyond?
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
That’s the problem. If the supposed carrier of the beneficial mutation dies from being killed by fire or a predator, or for some other reason, it’s back to square one. If the links in the chain of a gradual sequence of improvements is broken then it’s back to square one. Especially if multiple breaks occur.
Click to expand...
It’s not a problem. Most carriers of beneficial mutations do not survive to pass them on, even if, in quantity, those mutations confer reproductive advantage. Either the mutation occurs again, or it is indeed lost, and a whole possible lineage never occurs. However, you’re getting lost when you mention multiple breaks. The chain of successful mutations is progressed from one generation to the next. Once the new generation is up and running, the previous links (ancestors) are irrelevant to further development.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
So, dinosaurs didn’t develop feathers ?
Click to expand...
As you have realised from the evolutionist comments above, that depends what you mean by dinosaurs, develop, and feathers.
Click to expand...
 
If you think achieving something is the point of this thread - you are so wrong.

This subject used to be banned. I wonder when they will ban it again…
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
edwest211:
That’s the problem. If the supposed carrier of the beneficial mutation dies from being killed by fire or a predator, or for some other reason, it’s back to square one. If the links in the chain of a gradual sequence of improvements is broken then it’s back to square one. Especially if multiple breaks occur.
Click to expand...
It’s not a problem. Most carriers of beneficial mutations do not survive to pass them on, even if, in quantity, those mutations confer reproductive advantage. Either the mutation occurs again, or it is indeed lost, and a whole possible lineage never occurs. However, you’re getting lost when you mention multiple breaks. The chain of successful mutations is progressed from one generation to the next. Once the new generation is up and running, the previous links (ancestors) are irrelevant to further development.
Click to expand...
How is beneficial mutations going to help the future transitional forms if it takes millions of years to do so?
 
GodSoughtMe said:
If you think achieving something is the point of this thread - you are so wrong.

This subject used to be banned. I wonder when they will ban it again…
Click to expand...
Just hit the Flag button and let the moderators decide.
 
That’s the other problem. A problem needs to be solved now, not millions of years from that point. And problems in real environments will outpace solutions in many cases. How did the camel get its hump? Some “thing” called evolution “decided” it needed one?
 
Very slowly? Before dying of starvation or an ice age or an asteroid impact? Waaaay too many maybes.
 
Techno2000 said:
Don’t they need those benefits now.
Click to expand...
If the environment changes too much too quickly, then evolution cannot work, and species become extinct. The hunting of the rhino has only been going on for a few hundred years, but it has no way to defend itself against man, and will probably die out completely before long.
edwest211 said:
Very slowly? Before dying of starvation or an ice age or an asteroid impact? Waaaay too many maybes.
Click to expand...
No. The slow speed of evolution suggests that sudden environmental changes are likely to lead to extinction, and the evidence suggests that they did.
 
I get that. What I don’t get is (A) a long string of mutations getting passed on in a dynamic environment. “Environmental pressures” is not a good explanation. A lot can happen in millions of years, so it appears that evolution relies on too much speculation and “luck.” It has no ability to decide anything.
 
Last edited:
Anything. Evolution isn’t something animals do, it’s the word for the accumulation of advantageous DNA.
 
That’s right. Evolution is not a thing, and doesn’t make decisions. It is our name for the adaptations which accumulate over time, and the mechanism for them.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
How is beneficial mutations going to help the future transitional forms if it takes millions of years to do so?
Click to expand...
Very slowly. That’s why life is three billion years old.
Click to expand...
If my children need coats in the future to survive the cold they need the coats when it gets cold… not millions of years later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top