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.
That is not logical. If a bird, for example, loses the ability to breed with a particular other bird, that does not mean it stops breeding.
 
Techno2000 said:
Every cocker spaniel I had ,or seen has their tail cut…but cocker spaniels tails keep on growing.If man killed every cocker spaniel they would go out of existence…but that has nothing to do with evolution.
Click to expand...
Every Jewish and Moslem man, and some others, have had their foreskins removed. You seem to be following the Lamarckian idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That was shown to be wrong in the 19th century, using examples such as the one you gave.

You are right that is has nothing to do with evolution since removing a tail or a foreskin does not measurably affect the genome of the population.
 
It means it no longer breeds with those birds, not their own. Evolution works on populations, not individuals. A single mutation that isn’t a dominate one will go nowhere.

Edit…I misread your comment so mine probably doesn’t make sense.
Of course it doesn’t stop breeding with compatible birds so I’m unsure what you meant…sorry.
 
Last edited:
So, the loss of function became dominant. And the loss of a previous breeding group cut out that population.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
You would have to cut the DNA tail code out of the dog for that to happen, just cutting the tail won’t work
Click to expand...
By killing the dogs with longer tails (just as with killing elephants with larger tusks) the genes for longer tails/bigger tusks are preferentially removed from the population, leaving the genes for shorter tails/shorter tusks.

Cutting a tail does not affect population DNA. Killing the dog to remove the tail does affect population DNA by removing the DNA of that individual from the DNA pool of the population.
 
Not true. Both birds, in my example, just continue breeding. They cannot tell. Based on my reading of the scientific literature, males will still attempt to fertilize either. There is no function gain.
 
buffalo said:
No, it already had this ability. It loses with the other half.
Click to expand...
The marsupial lineage has the ability to interbreed with marsupials. Then the lineage splits into wombats and kangaroos. Wombats have gained the ability to breed with wombats, where previously they bred with marsupials. Kangaroos have gained the ability to breed with kangaroos where previously they bred with marsupials.

Both have lost the ability to breed with marsupials; both have gained a new ability to breed with either wombats of kangaroos.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
What organism is not reproducing successfully ?
Click to expand...
Any extinct organism. T. rex for example is not currently reproducing successfully. Was that really such a difficult question?
Click to expand...
I meant in this day and age… T. rex went extinct because a meteor kill them off …or becauses they slowly morphed into birds … something like that.
 
rossum said:
(just as with killing elephants with larger tusks)
Click to expand...
Killing elephants with large tusk DNA, and having smaller tusk males breed would just be a form of selective breeding.Just like catching all the largest male fish out of a small pond would result in a smaller size fish population down the road.Evolution has no answer for that, other than making fish mouths hook resistant. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Killing elephants with large tusk DNA, and having smaller tusk males breed would just be a from of selective breeding.
Click to expand...
Read Darwin. His first chapter is about the selective breeding of pigeons and other domestic animals. Selective breeding has been part of evolutionary theory from chapter one.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Killing elephants with large tusk DNA, and having smaller tusk males breed would just be a from of selective breeding.
Click to expand...
Read Darwin. His first chapter is about the selective breeding of pigeons and other domestic animals. Selective breeding has been part of evolutionary theory from chapter one.
Click to expand...
I’m fine with that, but selective breeding can only go so far.
 
Last edited:
And now we see pre-existing genes with herbicide resistance. See how they cleverly try to give the usual nod to Darwin.

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com
 
Aloysium said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t present at the start. The material universe expanded through billions of years, eventually getting to us. It could have been (and likely was) created such that it “developed by itself” from our perspective. God was intimately involved with the whole thing as Creator, but he broke the balls knowing exactly how they would bounce and which pockets they’d go into. The physical universe is a series of reactions. Even lower animals function on pure instinct and fly straight as an arrow from an omniscient perspective. Until recently, there’d be no need for God to intervene in the universe at all because everything would be behaving exactly as expected from the first instant. He’d only have to interact once free agents arrived who could change the natural sequence with their choices.
Aloysium said:
I have come to believe, and I didn’t when I first entered into this discussion, that the first human being was not conceived in the womb of a primate, but was created in adult form.
Click to expand...
No way to rule that out with certainty of course, but why then the close similarity with other intelligent primates? Not just in looks but in DNA. Why not make us similar to a dumb animal? Why not make us something completely different? Sure, who am I to question why an omnipotent God does something a particular way. He can do whatever he wants. But does the evidence before us support what you suggest? Would anyone ever arrive at that if not for a particular interpretation of the beginning of an old book? Or…does the evidence support what science says? Sure, science doesn’t have all the answers, but the evidence before us is overwhelming. It tells us the universe is ancient and all life on the planet has a common ancestor.

You know, it’s impossible to even prove your hypothesis. If God supernaturally intervened to give us Adam then he necessarily suspended the normal functioning of the natural universe. What does that even look like? How could you test to conclusively say something like that ever happened? You couldn’t of course. Which is also a strong reason for dismissing Creationist arguments. It’s simply unfalsifiable.
Aloysium said:
It’s a joke to some people here that I write so much in my posts.
Click to expand...
It’s not a joke to me. I enjoy thoughtful exchanges with honest people.
 
Hobgoblin said:
Until recently, there’d be no need for God to intervene in the universe at all because everything would be behaving exactly as expected from the first instant. He’d only have to interact once free agents arrived who could change the natural sequence with their choices.
Click to expand...
Or God allows us to steer so to speak. Our Lady exhorts us to pray. We now know the effects the conscious observer can influence the outcomes. Maybe we could experiment on the quantum effects of prayer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top