Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have never seen a fossil of an animal that was not fully functional, and insects trapped in amber that were not fully functional. Creating novel organs requires rewiring the nervous system, the brain and the blood supply. In order to stay alive and function, the new part would have to be fully integrated into a system that was already functional before an alleged mutation occurred. Most mutations are neutral, and some are harmful.
 
Last edited:
Now, I would like to know where my understanding is lacking. Please correct it. I am sure I must be in error in understanding as the above sounds ridiculous.
They will say this happens so gradually that nobody will notice anything, and all will be well.
 
Animals survive to fill their niche because they survived. Randomly.
Random mutations know how to produce animals fit for survival ,but first random mutations it must first produce animals not fit for survival.Why can’t random mutations get it right the first time ?
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Those mutations will quickly die with the animals that have them.
So these animals don’t mate and reproduce also ?
I depends on how serious the random variation is. Some of them are so serious the animal dies before it can reach the age of maturity to mate. Those that do manage to mate and pass along their genetic code to their offspring will not produce as many offspring, and their offspring will not be as successful, and eventually they will all die out leaving no offspring at all.

It is interesting in this respect to consider the random mutation that caused sickle cell anemia. That is certainly a negative variation, since the condition leaves you, well, anemic. But that mutation has not died out. Most interesting, eh? But when you look a little closer you see that the mutation, although it makes you anemic, also makes you less susceptible to malaria. In many places in the tropics, malaria is a huge killer. So a mutation that gives some advantage against malaria may be, on balance, and reasonably good mutation, even considering the anemia that comes with it. That could explain why that mutation has not died out, and there are still people today with sickle cell anemia.
 
Some of them are so serious the animal dies before it can reach the age of maturity to mate.
So with random mutations you have to take the good with the bad ,but if you wait long enough the good will always win, and this is how we got world we see today.
 
Yes, God created every animal to fill a niche in a ecosystem.
And if the ecosystem changes? Has God set up his system so that every animal can adapt to the changes? If dogs enter into the system where we have our chickens, does God allow for what everyone in this thread refers to and accepts as adaption?

Because if you say no, you are the only person who has posted on this thread that doesn’t believe that happens.

Correction…who refuses to accept that that happens. Literally everyone who says macro evolution doesn’t happen states quite clearly that micro evolution does. And that’s as far as it goes.

They say that when you are in diagreement with someone, then keep stepping back until you reach a point where you can both say - Yeah, we agree on that, so let’s move on and see where we go.

I have gone back literally to the absolute beginning of where any discussion like this can go. To the undeniable fact that succesive generations of animals adapt to their conditions. Whether by intent, or by natural means.

So please, can we agree at least on that.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
Yes, God created every animal to fill a niche in a ecosystem.
And if the ecosystem changes? Has God set up his system so that every animal can adapt to the changes? If dogs enter into the system where we have our chickens, does God allow for what everyone in this thread refers to and accepts as adaption?

Because if you say no, you are the only person who has posted on this thread that doesn’t believe that happens.

Correction…who refuses to accept that that happens. Literally everyone who says macro evolution doesn’t happen states quite clearly that micro evolution does. And that’s as far as it goes.

They say that when you are in diagreement with someone, then keep stepping back until you reach a point where you can both say - Yeah, we agree on that, so let’s move on and see where we go.

I have gone back literally to the absolute beginning of where any discussion like this can go. To the undeniable fact that succesive generations of animals adapt to their conditions. Whether by intent, or by natural means.

So please, can we agree at least on that.
You mean elephants whose offspring have smaller tusk ?
 
Let’s not be specific. Just in general terms, do you agree that succesive generations of animals can adapt to a changing environment?
 
Let’s not be specific. Just in general terms, do you agree that succesive generations of animals can adapt to a changing environment?
What animals and what environment can you be a little more specific.
 
Let’s not be specific. Just in general terms, do you agree that succesive generations of animals can adapt to a changing environment?
If global warming is true then we should see Polar bears adapting… are they ?

 
Last edited:
40.png
Bradskii:
Let’s not be specific. Just in general terms, do you agree that succesive generations of animals can adapt to a changing environment?
What animals and what environment can you be a little more specific.
No, we don’t need to be specific. We just need a general agreement that under certain conditions, such as a change in the environment, succesive generations of some animals can adapt to those changes.

Why are you trying to avoid agreeing to what almost everyone on both sides of the argument already agree?
 
Last edited:
If the environment changes fast how is slow evolution going to keep up, it takes millons of years for evolution to work, while environments can change overnight, the time doesn’t add up.
 
Last edited:
Evolution would have to know what the environment will be like millons of years into the future, so that it can (slowly and gradually) mutate the necessary adaptations for the animal to survive in that new environment.
 
Last edited:
Evolution would have to know what the environment will be like millons of years into the future, so that it can (slowly and gradually) mutate the necessary adaptations for the animal to survive in that new environment.
We’re not even talking about macro evolution over millions of years. Just simple changes that may occur down the generations due to changes in environment.

I have an idea that you are going to refuse to agree. Even though practically everyone else readily admits it happens. Why on earth won’t you?
 
Let’s work this back to an earlier time. These originals could reproduce. Over time, they LOST the ability and now we have what is a man-made definition of speciation ala evolution. I would call this devolution.
Lets work this forward to a later time. These originals could reproduce. Over time, they GAINED the ability to reproduce with the new species and now we have what is a man-made definition of speciation ala evolution. I would call this evolution.

You will note that all of science is “man made”, including biology and including the science behind the computer/phone on which you typed that post. Why do you think that “man made” implies something that is not true?

rossum
 
but on the other hand you interpret literally when it suits you, as with your “God creates evil” Isaiah verse.
Does evil exist? Yes or no?

Did God create everything that exists (except Himself)? Yes or no?

I do not need a verse from Isaiah to make my point. Or did your version of God not create everything, just some things?

rossum
 
Random mutations know how to produce animals fit for survival ,but first random mutations it must first produce animals not fit for survival.Why can’t random mutations get it right the first time ?
Your lack of knowledge of evolution is showing here. Evolution includes natural selection. By omitting natural selection you are setting up a strawman. Random mutations are random. Natural selection eliminates or reduces the deleterious mutations and amplifies the beneficial mutations over the generations.

You are tilting at windmills.

rossum
 
If the environment changes fast how is slow evolution going to keep up, it takes millons of years for evolution to work, while environments can change overnight, the time doesn’t add up.
When environments change suddenly some animals migrate to places better suited for them. Or they just die out, as many species have done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top