Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.
So you are saying that anything that was taken out the gene pool, helped to direct and guide random mutations?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Bradskii:
Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.
Why is that such a good thing, there are all kinds of birds that live and make their nest on the ground right now.
It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. Well, unless you are one of the chooks that can’t reach the low branches and get eaten. So let’s not confuse things. Let’s just concentrate on these chickens and these dogs.

We have a situation that results in an arms race between predator and its prey. Chooks that can get higher up the tree live longer and therefore breed chooks that are better at doing that. Dogs that can climb better get to live longer and therefore breed dogs that are better at doing that.

So if the situation, the environment, stays the same, what do you think might happen?
 
40.png
Bradskii:
Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.
So you are saying that anything that was taken out the gene pool, helped to direct and guide random mutations?
Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do. Leaving, obviously, the ones that are.

Random mutations are just that. Random. Some help the organism survive, some are a disadvantage and some are neutral. If a random mutation occurs within a chicken population that allows some to flap to low branches and there are no predators that makes that an advantage, it is at best neutral. No benefit and no disadvantage.

But if the environment changes and dogs are introduced, then it becomes, by that very fact, beneficial.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.
Why is that such a good thing, there are all kinds of birds that live and make their nest on the ground right now.
It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. Well, unless you are one of the chooks that can’t reach the low branches and get eaten. So let’s not confuse things. Let’s just concentrate on these chickens and these dogs.

We have a situation that results in an arms race between predator and its prey. Chooks that can get higher up the tree live longer and therefore breed chooks that are better at doing that. Dogs that can climb better get to live longer and therefore breed dogs that are better at doing that.

So if the situation, the environment, stays the same, what do you think might happen?
About as far you can go with this is…Selective Breeding. You can only extrapolate and speculate if this might cause random mutations to create whole new species of animals.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Bradskii:
Because those that can’t are taken out of the gene pool.
Why is that such a good thing, there are all kinds of birds that live and make their nest on the ground right now.
It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. Well, unless you are one of the chooks that can’t reach the low branches and get eaten. So let’s not confuse things. Let’s just concentrate on these chickens and these dogs.

We have a situation that results in an arms race between predator and its prey. Chooks that can get higher up the tree live longer and therefore breed chooks that are better at doing that. Dogs that can climb better get to live longer and therefore breed dogs that are better at doing that.

So if the situation, the environment, stays the same, what do you think might happen?
About as far you can go with this is…Selective Breeding. You can only extrapolate and speculate if this might cause random mutations to create whole new species of animals.
This isn’t selective breeding. No-one is making any conscious decisions to try to reach a particular result. This is all happening naturally. The random mutations don’t in themselves create new species. They are possibly a disadvantage in which case the organism loses out and is removed from the gene pool or it advantageous and the organism remains in the pool and produces offspring that have that genetic advantage.

And we still just have chickens and dogs. No-one has mentioned new species or even any drastic changes.

This isn’t even micro evolution. It’s just some quite reasonable changes in which organisms survive and which don’t.
 
40.png
Bradskii:
Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do.
How do you know this , can you give an example of such animals ?
If a random mutation means that you can’t run or climb or see or swim or fly or hear as well as other members of your species, then there is a small yet significantly important chance that those without that mutation will survive longer that you will and that mutation will be bred out.

If it’s an advantageous mutation, it will remain for the same reason. It’s valid for every single organism, except those who can control their environment. Such as us.
 
Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do.
How good at survival a animal would be if it has to go from one species to another. It’s half one thing and half another. It doesn’t know if it’s coming or going.What kind of food it’s going to eat.What kind defences it’s going to have,what kind of new place it has to live.Where is a mate that is in the same stage of development as it is in for reproduction …on and on…
 
If a random mutation means that you can’t run or climb or see or swim or fly or hear as well as other members of your species, then there is a small yet significantly important chance that those without that mutation will survive longer that you will and that mutation will be bred out.
How do you know if this has ever happen ?
 
Speciation doesn’t happen overnight. But changes within a species can be quite dramatic. As per the elephants.
Elephants bred in captivity would not be affected by this.
 
Last edited:
Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do.
How do you apply this to a monkey changing into a man, a rodent changing into a whale, and dinosaur changing into a chicken ?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Bradskii:
Animals get taken out of the gene pool because they aren’t as good as surviving the environment as those that do.
How good at survival a animal would be if it has to go from one species to another. It’s half one thing and half another. It doesn’t know if it’s coming or going.What kind of food it’s going to eat.What kind defences it’s going to have,what kind of new place it has to live.Where is a mate that is in the same stage of development as it is in for reproduction …on and on…
Slow down. We’re not talking about speciation. And an organism is never half of one thing and half another. It is all what it is at any given moment and at that moment it will remain exactly as it is unless there are changes in the environment or a random mutation that will decrease its chances of surviving long enough to pass on its genes.

Stick with the chickens. They are still chickens. Nothing has changed, except that most of them are now more adept at gaining some height and reaching low level branches. Which increases their chances of survival. That’s all.

That’s all I need you to understand. Again, I am not talking about one creature turning into another. Just small, incremental changes that allow a greater chance of survival. They are still chickens. Agreed?
 
40.png
Bradskii:
If a random mutation means that you can’t run or climb or see or swim or fly or hear as well as other members of your species, then there is a small yet significantly important chance that those without that mutation will survive longer that you will and that mutation will be bred out.
How do you know if this has ever happen ?
This is common sense. If you and a group of friends are in the woods and are attacked by a bear, you don’t have to run faster than the bear to survive. You just need to run faster than the slowest runner or climb a tree better than the worst climber. The bear will eat the guy that doesn’t have the benefit of your running or climbing genes.

Watch any wild life documentary. The lions eat the antelopes that are easiest to catch. The slowest ones . The least fit.

The dogs on our island eat the chooks that can’t escape by flapping to low slung branches. It’s the most efficient way to stay alive. That’s the way nature works.
 
Animals do not produce human babies.
Nor do humans. Two humans can produce a physical body, but they cannot produce a human soul. AIUI God directly produces the soul for each and every human alive, not that person’s parents.

Adam was produced in the same way as the rest of us, a material body from material biological processes and a soul direct from God.

rossum
 
I was going to disagree with the statement that we produce a human body, thinking of ourselves as merely causal agents acting through our will. But a second thought is that in being a body-soul unity, we are also those silent processes that keep us in life. There is a union of two haploid cells that is seen happening physically in the creation of a new person. We know there to be a combination of genetic material at a molecular level that goes on as this happens. Information is collected from two parents to produce the physical form of a new person.

Although God breathed into the initial matter which formed the body of Adam, Eve was created from him. A new individual person was brought into existence so that we may be reunited in love. Similarly, I believe we are created body-spirit persons at the moment of conception. God does not breath His Spirit into someone that already exists.

That would tie in to how Adam was initially created. He could not have come from two animal gametes, which would combine to form another animal. It’s not stated how matter was brought together to shape Adam’s body. Whether it was moulded in the macrocosmic womb that is the environment or created as one seed the microcosm of an animal womb, I don’t know. That we look the way we do which is similar to hominids to my mind is because God wanted a body that would work and fit in with the rest of nature. It’s not really natural selection, but the other way around, similar to what we do in breeding animals, except that we would not be direct descendants from those animals. Rather, it was a matter of what was good for them would be good for us. That information was used to make the human body, capable of living on earth and also knowing God.

There are different stories that encompass the data.
 
Last edited:
You don’t have to teach science to us. Christians invented the scientific method. No atheist was involved in the invention of scientific method.

Actually you seems to follow the scientism ideology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top