McBell
Unbound
Which, if you knew about evolution you would realize that your mocking is only showing how little you know.
but to each their own.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Babyhood to adulthood
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
Which, if you knew about evolution you would realize that your mocking is only showing how little you know.
but to each their own.
I have to wonder what the point is, but I did point out the article about Synapsids back in post #50.
Synapsid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not a biologist and my specific knowledge is limited, but it is not like the information is unavailable.
They are reasonable answers. Guesses to an extent, but educated by available knowledge. If you want specifics, the resources are there for the finding - but I fear you just won't want to accept them, even leaving aside that there is much that is simply beyond your and mine specific trainings.
Far more than you either realize or admit, apparently.
Please. You are doing yourself no favors by calling actual tested knowledge "guesses".
The same way any other animal survives, one must assume. One moment at a time, one generation after the other. I don't think they had any other way.
The one you gave above, in post #78, indeed isn't.
The part in bold is too specific to be accurate. It may apply in some species, but will not in others.
For one thing, that is not what you said previously. For another, it is a bit vague and too absolute to be useful. How does one tell an offspring that is protected from one that is not? How do you measure protectedness, fitness, even passing genes to the next generation?
Alceste
Vagabond
Evolution doesn't necessarily favour organisms that care for their offspring. The "squirt and skeddadle" approach, dating from the earliest egg laying animals (ie reptiles, amphibians, insects) , is still much more common than the more intensive child care that has gradually developed in birds and mammals.
The mammalian trait of caring for their young allows a greater survival rate, which allows us to reproduce infrequently without a net population loss. It wouldn't be advantageous for your average fish, though, since how would a fish go about protecting an only child or a small litter from a hungry shark? Better to have 200 babies at a time so that a few can survive when the shark comes along.
Mammals have evolved a variety of traits that protect us from predation, allowing us to reproduce infrequently. Natal care is one of many. Claws, fangs, antlers, tusks, speed, higher intelligence, herding, size, burrowing or living in trees, etc. Being safer from predators than our bug and fish friends means we can survive just fine as a species if we have 3 or 4 babies instead of 3 or 4 hundred.
As to why that is a beneficial adaptation (for us, though not for fish) reproduction is very costly in terms of energy. If we can make do with only a few offspring, we have more energy for finding food and water - something fish and lizards don't have to worry about quite as much as we do.
I have no issue with this and think it's interesting and accept it as the best current understanding.
It's mind blowing to me that so many beneficial processes could come about through only the processes accepted by science (no conscious intent). I got to stop and think about how many processes go on in my body to make it function. I stand in awe of nature.
As I said before I believe in conscious intelligence in nature (above and different from our own). But what I believe is extra and not part of science. So I have no bones to pick with material evolutionists or physical science; except when they lack humility and think science is all there is to know about the universe.
Last edited:
You can say that again. It blows me away what nature is capable of and doubly so that it does it without any guidance except itself. I cant help but think divinity when I think of nature.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Oddly, I see the natural world. No need for a guiding hand... anywhere...
Its the fact that no guiding hand is needed that blows me away. We could call what nature has done dumb luck or whatever but its extraordinary what its capable of. Evolving to the point that it can purposely guide itself without need for outside intervention. The divinity comes from within.
Alceste
Vagabond
It depends how you measure "luck". The vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct. Like 99% or something. Life is still awesome and incredible to contemplate, but it's hard to imagine what kind of guiding and omnipotent intelligence would tolerate such a massive rate of failure.
I don't think the intelligence of nature spirits is omnipotent or omniscient.....just beyond and different from ours......like humans make man-made things with a failure rate.....is it failure or seeing needs for design improvement......there is a spectrum between human intelligence/abilities and omniscience/omnipotence and that's where nature spirits fall IMO....
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I understand how awesome the process is. It is actually a multitude of processess under the umrella term evoltuion. And based on my limit capacity for knowledge, I must remain agnostic toward the notion of a guiding intelligence, while based on my rationality I must continue to function as an atheist.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Yes. It really is the power of evolution to explain every fact we observe in biological diversity, without reference to any intelligent agent, that makes it such a rational theory. And while the current state of biodiversity may seem like luck, every single species surviving today was shaped by the stress of evolution just like every mountain was shaped by forces in the earth and atmosphere. There is no preordained outcome, but what results is magnificent in the way it has been carved, sanded, and polished, by environmental forces.
Its a fail proof system, idiot proof. A system in which failing just means getting another shot.
Alceste
Vagabond
Tell that to the dinosaurs.
They got more chances, ask their bird relatives.
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
How Synapids explain the point ?
Changes can never be achieved without mutations which is random, so the basic of it is randomness.
How not guessing while things happened millions of years ago ?
While the first mammals were tiny the Synapids were huge ones, guess what happened millions of years ago.
How the CHLCA were look like ?
Where are the fossils of the CHLCA ?
Why humans became humans and chimps became chimps ?
No we aren't guessing, we are 100% sure of what happened millions of years ago. :sarcastic
Are you guessing here ?
FearGod, at this point I have to wonder if having time travel and immortality and somehow following bacteria all the way up the evolutionary tree to see all the lifeforms that descended from it would be enough for you.
You just need to deny.
You just need to deny.
By illustrating it, and being a sizeable set of evidence that it happened.
Mutations are random. Selective pressure is directed by the environment. Not sure what you mean by "the basic of it".
There is a difference between guessing and looking at the available evidence, formulating hypothesis, testing them, going back to the evidence, cross-checking with new findings when they become available.
But if you don't see such a difference, and barring the development of time travel, sure, all we have left are guesses. Even with time travel, you could doubt that it goes to the actual past; maybe it is some parallel Earth instead.
I don't know what you are talking about. The Synapsids varied a lot in size, much as current mammals (and for that matter, reptiles) do.
Pretty similar to its close ancestors and to its immediate descendents.
You think we would need to find some specific set of fossils to propose its existence? That has not been true for quite some time.
It would be like having to find a specific mummy to propose that there were Pharaohs in Egypt.
Besides, fossils have long become redundant as evidence of primate evolution. There are other, less flashy markers that biology learned to detect.
Selective pressure encouraged the differentiation between species adjusted to climbing tress and species adjusted to bipedal walking.
It happens often. Species capable of some degree of adjustment to various environments find themselves in situations which make more specific adjustment advantageous, so the descendents begin to drift apart in genetic similarity and compatibility, often becoming geographically distanced as well.
It is slightly surprising that you knew the concept of CHLCA but never learned this.
You are the one claiming perfect, absolute knowledge. Not the Evolutionists.
Draupadi
Active Member
With my shallow knowledge I can say that evolution is more akin to adaptation to the environment around you to survive than the growth of a baby. The cellular blobs that gave rise to mammals were capable of surviving and growing on their own. When the mammals came into the scene yes they needed parental care because their lifestyle became complex. Uncared for mammals either died or in rare cases somehow survived. Suppose if I were the first homo sapiens does that mean that my parents didn't nurture me well because they weren't one?
One must assume very few if any Hominids ever failed to recognize their own direct offspring as their own. It is not like there is a clear dividing line somewhere.