Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

For someone who claims to understand evolution you sure don't express it very well.

Even scientists don't "understand" everything about evolution -- keep figuring new things about what might have happened -- nevertheless, semantic changes are occurring (evolving would you say? No -- that can't be -- by "natural selection..." because people can be conscious but nature?? in the form of "natural selection" ain't conscious say some. Nevertheless they select.

 

[YoursTrue]

please don’t try to explain something you don’t understand.

There are no choice made, YoursTrue. Choice implied conscious intent and decision making. Animals, plants & microorganisms don’t choose, it is the genes that determine what traits are inherited, not by any intent of any organisms.

Sure a man and woman can choose to have children, and you can predict what traits that each offspring may or may inherit from one or another, but on the gene & DNA levels, what are inherited or not, occurred without intent of conscious being.

There may be some traits in the gene that remain dormant for tens of generations, and that traits might manifest themselves when the gene activated, when an offspring has been born.

That’s just genetics as the result of sexual reproduction, where the gene pool from either of the families (ancestors of paternal & maternal sides) are already there. So there are no mutations involved.

Mutations, on the other hand, is where the genes mutated, and those mutated genes may or may not be added to the gene pool. Not all mutations are added to the gene pools. And if they don’t get added to the gene pool, then it is very unlikely any descendants will inherited that mutations.

What it means by mutated, it means there are alterations to the sequences of the DNA. These changes are abnormal.

Mutations are something new, that occurred…it may present themselves as physical trait that can be observed, or it may occur internally, so not externally noticeable. Some mutations are helpful (eg immunity to disease), while others malignant (eg cause disease), but most are neutral.

Organisms have no conscious control over whether mutations occur or not.

Go ahead -- does choosing to have children have any sense of "natural selection"?

 

[Valjean]

Something makes a "selection." Naturally of course, according to wording.

Yes, well camouflaged individuals avoid predation better, Well insulated individuals tolerate cold better. Metabolically lower individuals need less food. These differeces aren't planned, they're accidents of birth, and can either advantage or disadvantage an individual, depending on environment.
Why is this hard to understand? It's simple.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, well camouflaged individuals avoid predation better, Well insulated individuals tolerate cold better. Metabolically lower individuals need less food. These differeces aren't planned, they're accidents of birth, and can either advantage or disadvantage an individual, depending on environment.
Why is this hard to understand? It's simple.

I am talking about the concept of "natural selection." There IS no "selection" because it's RANDOM. If you want to call a car smashing into another car as selective -- go ahead.

 

[Valjean]

lol -- take your time -- The mutations are selected naturally. Somehow they're selected by ?? unconscious nature, I suppose. So unconscious nature selects whatever it wants -- some bad choices (deleterious mutations) and some, according to the theory, that enabled some fish that might have been endangered to crawl out of water and live on land. Or maybe they weren't endangered...they just wanted to get out of the water...or -- I guess nature knows...or doesn't know what it's selecting...

Or maybe they're selected by the genetic dice throw of sexual reproduction, with no intent, planning or manipulation.
If out of water, up a tree, or into the air confers some advantage, individuals capable of exploiting them will do so.

 

[Valjean]

Again, it's a "selective" process, according to the wording. But thanks for offering your view on things.

Not following. What does "it's a "selective" process," mean? Are you claiming conscious selection of some kind?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not intentional choice. A sieve can separate large and small particles, but there is no "choice" involved.

So as usual. No evidence.

The evidence you are speaking about in reference to "natural selection" of organisms evolving, for instance, from fish to apes just isn't there. No evidence of good selection. And of course, deleterious so-called natural selection wouldn't be around to show itself. Fossils demonstrate there were some organisms that were. They do not evidence that such naturally evolved even over the said millions of years, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

For someone who claims to understand evolution you sure don't express it very well.

Go tell the scientists that are reworking their wordings of things.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not following. What does "it's a "selective" process," mean? Are you claiming conscious selection of some kind?

Selection implies choice. No I am not claiming conscious choice. Nevertheless, selection, natural or unnatural, implies choice.

 

[John53]

Even scientists don't "understand" everything about evolution --

Correct.

keep figuring new things about what might have happened -- nevertheless, semantic changes are occurring (evolving would you say?

The person who is always putting words in brackets is complaining about semantics.

No -- that can't be -- by "natural selection..." because people can be conscious but nature?? in the form of "natural selection" ain't conscious say some. Nevertheless they select.

The above makes no sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct.



The person who is always putting words in brackets is complaining about semantics.



The above makes no sense.

Parentheses are not brackets. Anyway.

 

[John53]

Go ahead -- does choosing to have children have any sense of "natural selection"?

You may choose to have children.

But you don't select their eye colour, how tall they are, how fast they run or the millions of other things that are naturally selected.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct.



The person who is always putting words in brackets is complaining about semantics.



The above makes no sense.

Ok so nature is not conscious of its selection. Is that what you think? (Don't be shy...just say what you think or know about the process of "natural selection," please...)

 

[John53]

Parentheses are not brackets. Anyway.

lol

 

[YoursTrue]

You may choose to have children.

But you don't select their eye colour, how tall they are, how fast they run or the millions of other things that are naturally selected.

Ok, I don't disagree with that. But how are things then "naturally SELECTED?"

 

[YoursTrue]

lol

Glad you liked that.

 

[John53]

Ok so nature is not conscious of its selection. Is that what you think? (Don't be shy...just say what you think or know about the process of "natural selection," please...)

See the post above your post.

 

[YoursTrue]

lol

And definitely brackets usually denote something different than parentheses anyway!

 

[YoursTrue]

See the post above your post.

Ok have a good one! Bye for now...

 

[John53]

Ok, I don't disagree with that. But how are things then "naturally SELECTED?"

Gregor Mendel can answer that better than me.

Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org