E
edwest211
Guest
The Church is right. And false interpretations of what the Church tells us are wrong.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Then why does life try to survive?
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
They try to survive, not try to evolve.
The process driving evolution is not the individual, but natural selection. which has no will, purpose or goal.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
“no will, purpose or goal” That sounds like the American “going nowhere fast,” "or should it be: “going nowhere in particular slowly.”?
I
IWantGod
Guest
That’s true insofar as natural selection is concerned, but humans have an instinctual desire to survive and animals are instinctively driven to survival. That is teleological, it’s goal direction in nature, and that is not something to be ignored.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
But they never do, they are always being outdone by the next transitional stage that comes along.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Might be more accurate to say that a desire to survive is going to give one a strong survival advantage, hense why most creatures we see have this desire.
B
buffalo
Guest
So according to evo theory, what if the first organism did not have this desire? How could NS act on it?
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Yes. But that would be a result of evolution and not part of the process of evolution itself.
Exactly the same way it acts on organisms that do not have this desire today, like plants. A desire to survive is not necessary for natural selection to act on.
B
buffalo
Guest
Evolution had become a religion this far back…
"Haeckel and other materialists, and in their train Teutonic philosophers
and political theorists, joined to create that Darwinismus which made many of his followers more Darwinian than Darwin himself. . . . Men accepted natural selection as a proved and adequate cause of evolution and the origin of species.
Darwinism ceased to be a tentative scientific theory and became a philosophy, almost a religion." Dampier A History of Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928
"Haeckel and other materialists, and in their train Teutonic philosophers
and political theorists, joined to create that Darwinismus which made many of his followers more Darwinian than Darwin himself. . . . Men accepted natural selection as a proved and adequate cause of evolution and the origin of species.
Darwinism ceased to be a tentative scientific theory and became a philosophy, almost a religion." Dampier A History of Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
B
Bradskii
Guest
Too many long words, Andrew. You’re going to ha e to keep it real simple for some folk 'round these parts.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Luckily For some the desire does not require intelligence.AndrewAxland:
Evolution is based on survival.
Why do organisms seek survival?
E
edwest211
Guest
Natural selection, assuming for the moment it works as described, does not explain novel organs or the addition of wings or anything else. Adaptation works. That’s it. Natural selection happens in a dynamic, changing environment over millions of years. It does not explain animals and plants that went missing for millions of years and were found alive in recent years. Even though anything could have happened during those millions of years. It’s like a cartoon that shows a wingless creature, a formula, and “add millions of years” and the creature is redrawn with wings. Someone looking at the cartoon, looks at “add millions of years” and says, “I think you need to be a lot more specific at this point.”
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Yep. Us hayseeds jest don’t catch yer drift.
E
edwest211
Guest
And there it is.
D
Dan123
Guest
It’s not about which animals seek survival it’s about which animals DO survive. It would certainly make sense that those that seek survival will, statistically, be more likely to survive, but it’s not required.
The ‘first organism’ was unlikely to have any way to interact with its environment, either sensing or affecting it in any meaningful way, so a desire to survive likely played no part. It also of course had nothing trying to eat it, no diseases to contend with, only it’s environment.
The ‘first organism’ was unlikely to have any way to interact with its environment, either sensing or affecting it in any meaningful way, so a desire to survive likely played no part. It also of course had nothing trying to eat it, no diseases to contend with, only it’s environment.
D
Dan123
Guest
We see parts adapted for new uses all the time throughout the modern animal kingdom and fossil record. Mud-skippers are likely one of the more infamous examples, a fish spending much of its time on land and utilizing fins for land movement. Any minor variation which lets it more easily move on land would likely lead to increased survival, repeat over a long period of time and it wouldn’t be surprising to find descendants of the mud-skipper to have fins that looked more like what we’d call feet.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I think that if that was actually the problem then most people here would come out of these discussions not looking like a bunch of hayseeds.
Tbe process has been explained to you and others in incredible detail and I have the utmost respect for Rossum and a few others who are spending not a small amount of time trying to educate you.
If you said ‘Yes, I understand what you mean - I just don’t agree with you’, then that would be accepted as a reasonable answer. But the same dumb statements keep being made and the same dumb questions keep being asked when all the information has already been given and all the questions answered.
You and a few self identified hayseeds are simply not reading what is being written. There is a diconnect between what is on the screen in front of you and what makes it into your head. Young children understand the principles yet you seem unable to grasp even the most basic of concepts.
And again, nobody expects you to agree with them. But it defies credibility that you are none the wiser about the subject now then you were many weeks ago.
E
edwest211
Guest
Interesting thought but not demonstrateable. Why would a fish want anything to do with going on land? It lived in an environment it knew for a long time with food it knew. Going on land, if I was a fish, does not mean I know what is food and what is not. It’s speculation without knowing what really happened.
- Status