Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea of evolution is understandable and logically coherent as long as it dismisses reality. Perhaps to further your argument, you could point out the multitude of transitional organisms, necessarily present going by the analogy you presented about flips of a coin. So called transitional species are already where they should be, formed to exist in harmony with their environment. This cannot happen without the existence of factors beyond the random fluctuations in molecular configurations.
 
Aloysium said:
This cannot happen without the existence of factors beyond the random fluctuations in molecular configurations.
Click to expand...
You are right. As you say, “random fluctuations in molecular configurations” i.e. random mutations, are insufficient on their own. That is why the theory of evolution includes a factor beyond those random fluctuations: natural selection. Natural selection sorts through the random fluctuations, differentially amplifying the beneficial fluctuations and reducing or eliminating deleterious fluctuations.
 
Hobgoblin said:
Evolution is God’s creative power on display! I suspect he didn’t have to intervene at all until free agents (us) started making choices for him to react to.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how our free will as a central feature of our human nature, woould have been present, not to mention molecules and planets, at the beginning, with the big bang. Seems to me he would of necessity have to intervene; that is, unless creation happened in steps, beginning with light. I would also consider that since I did not exist at the beginning of time, I would have to be created later, but this would be a different aspect of creation, since we are all of us here, expression of mankind, which had a beginning in time, as we do here and now. onntologically in the moment.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
How do species adapt to bullets ?
Click to expand...
By making themselves less attractive as targets. Elephants with large tusks are good targets for ivory poachers. Hence, elephants in heavily poached areas have smaller, or no, tusks, making them less likely to be shot: Under poaching pressure, elephants are evolving to lose their tusks.
Click to expand...
How in the World would evolution know how to make Elephants less attractive as targets to man ?
 
Aloysium said:
The idea of evolution is understandable and logically coherent as long as it dismisses reality.
Click to expand...
This statement alone makes me worried that we cannot have a productive conversation about evolution. Can you tell me this, if you reject evolution, how do you believe that the species we see arrived at their current form?
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
How in the World would evolution know how to make Elephants less attractive as targets to man ?
Click to expand...
Your use of the word “know” is incorrect. Evolution does not “know”. Poachers kill elephants with larger tusks. Hence elephants with small or absent tusks are more likely to reproduce and have calves, who will carry the genes for smaller or absent tusks. If an elephant is shot it can have no more calves. If it is not shot it can continue having calves.

I find it strange that you do not know how evolution works. You have been here long enough to have picked up the basics.
 
FredBloggs said:
I wouldn’t be so hasty to jump to that conclusion - plenty of people still demonstrating a lack of understanding of what evolutionary theory actually is!
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah - if we only understood. The point is we do, macro does not happen.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
How in the World would evolution know how to make Elephants less attractive as targets to man ?
Click to expand...
Your use of the word “know” is incorrect. Evolution does not “know”. Poachers kill elephants with larger tusks. Hence elephants with small or absent tusks are more likely to reproduce and have calves, who will carry the genes for smaller or absent tusks. If an elephant is shot it can have no more calves. If it is not shot it can continue having calves.

I find it strange that you do not know how evolution works. You have been here long enough to have picked up the basics.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make evolutionary sense , because elephants need their tusks for survival to fight off predators
 
FredBloggs said:
“Somebody must have put that rock right there because the odds of it happening by chance are too small.”
Click to expand...
These are not functionally specified. If the rock fell in a precise spot because we set other rocks in place to insure it bounced certain ways to achieve the desired positioning we would know this was setup by an intelligent agent.
 
TMC said:
Can you tell me this, if you reject evolution, how do you believe that the species we see arrived at their current form?
Click to expand...
Macro is rejected, not micro.

Lineage splitting.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Poachers kill elephants with larger tusks. Hence elephants with small or absent tusks are more likely to reproduce and have calves, who will carry the genes for smaller or absent tusks.
Click to expand...
This is like saying, if man kept cutting off the tails of every dog, then dogs would stop growing tails…ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Horns could just keep on growing with no end in sight. I mean, how would they know they’re too long?
 
Techno2000 said:
That doesn’t make evolutionary sense , because elephants need their tusks for survival to fight off predators
Click to expand...
Not “need”, though they can be useful. Large tusks are not needed, as is shown by females who have smaller tusks than males, even in the absence of poaching. Males do use their tusks to fight other males for mating access to females. However, if all the large tusked males have been shot, that ceases to be a disadvantage.

You need to think this through more carefully.

Alternatively, you can show us evidence of the designer directly intervening in elephant DNA to reduce tusk size.
 
edwest211 said:
Yeah. Horns could just keep on growing with no end in sight. I mean, how would they know they’re too long?
Click to expand...
For elephants the process cutting off their tusk sends a DNA message code straight in their genome… for rhinos not so much.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Macro is rejected, not micro.

Lineage splitting.
Click to expand...
Oh dear… Your “lineage splitting” is macro evolution. That is how is works, one lineage splits into two different lineages.

Another one of your Humpty Dumpty arguments; you seem to think that by using a different word for the same concept you can win the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top