Babyhood to adulthood

[idav]

What I see is that every human on the planet must have parents. Creationists are to try and convince people that somwhere down the line that there is an exception, where every species started with no parents. I am not sure how people can believe this no parents idea without ignoring basic biology.

 

[FearGod]

As well you shouldn't. To believe so would be quite foolish.

What gives rise to sophisticated organisms is random mutations PLUS selective environmental pressures.

Natural selection is a normal outcome,no objection, but random mutation that result in a sophisticated organism is the basic point of foolishness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Natural selection is a normal outcome,no objection, but random mutation that result in a sophisticated organism is the basic point of foolishness.

Why? Do you not understand that mutations can add information to organisms? Do you not understand that when you have millions upon millions of these mutations throughout multiple generations being selected for and against by natural selection, it's only reasonable to assume it results in changes within the species?

What about that is foolishness?

 

[FearGod]

Why? Do you not understand that mutations can add information to organisms? Do you not understand that when you have millions upon millions of these mutations throughout multiple generations being selected for and against by natural selection, it's only reasonable to assume it results in changes within the species?

What about that is foolishness?

Because it happens randomly.

Random mutations that made you better than Homo erectus who lived on earth for 2 millions of years as Homo erectus..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because it happens randomly.

Random mutations that made you better than Homo erectus who lived on earth for 2 millions of years as Homo erectus..

But when you add natural selection to the process, the fact that the mutations are random becomes irrelevant. Anything random that is advantageous is selected for, so it doesn't "happen randomly". The mutations are selected.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As the question apply that the species who will reach the fruit will survive and pass their genes to the next generation, that means they were hungry before reaching the fruits and then in one day night it becomes tall enough to eat from the fruit.

Keep in defending the stupid ideas.

Again I am not sure what the objection is. That there must have been a fruit and if an animal was too short to get to it then they died? Therefore evolution is wrong?

Can you explain your actual objection in a clear manor?

 

[FearGod]

But when you add natural selection to the process, the fact that the mutations are random becomes irrelevant. Anything random that is advantageous is selected for, so it doesn't "happen randomly". The mutations are selected.

Natural selection is the normal thing to happen but the abnormal thing is that random mutations made it possible, natural selection has nothing to do other than sieving.

 

[FearGod]

Again I am not sure what the objection is. That there must have been a fruit and if an animal was too short to get to it then they died? Therefore evolution is wrong?

Can you explain your actual objection in a clear manor?

In a clear manner (not minor), because we are assuming the impossibility.

[youtube]3yNju1_-CMk[/youtube]
Why DNA Proves Evolution Is False And Intelligent Design Is True - YouTube

 

[idav]

Natural selection is the normal thing to happen but the abnormal thing is that random mutations made it possible, natural selection has nothing to do other than sieving.

It isnt abnormal, for example just with our vocals moving to different positions allowed us to speak. The chimps dont have the vocals in the right spot but they have the intellignece for speech and language.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't say so and the others are free to believe what they want to believe, it was about genesis errors about the creation of life and the universe and such mistakes aren't found in the quran.

I can assure you that both books are equally incorrect. You and the Christian creationists both use the exact same type of thinking to maintain your belief that they are true. Cognitive bias, cherry picking, creative rationalization and a surprisingly flexible interpretation that adapts (evolves!) as each incorrect factual claim becomes impossible to defend. Literal truths suddenly become symbolic / poetic truths as soon as they are proven untrue.

 

[Alceste]

As the question apply that the species who will reach the fruit will survive and pass their genes to the next generation, that means they were hungry before reaching the fruits and then in one day night it becomes tall enough to eat from the fruit.

Keep in defending the stupid ideas.

Nope. The fruit trees and the animals that eat the fruit both evolve together. The trees grow taller because the short ones get munched, and the tree munchers grow taller because the short ones starve.

 

[idav]

Just to give creationists a clue, in case it helps, scientists dont mistake babies for another species. The diversity we see on the planet is due to the incremental changes which happen from generation to generation. There is no evidence of a life without a parent of some sort, that is sorta even in the definition for life that it procreates.

 

[Alceste]

Because it happens randomly.

Random mutations that made you better than Homo erectus who lived on earth for 2 millions of years as Homo erectus..

If there are no genetic changes from one generation to the next, what exactly is it that you think natural selection is acting upon?

 

[idav]

If there are no genetic changes from one generation to the next, what exactly is it that you think natural selection is acting upon?

Gosh is god choosing every one of our genetic hiccups too? That god what a joker.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Natural selection is the normal thing to happen but the abnormal thing is that random mutations made it possible, natural selection has nothing to do other than sieving.

But that's exactly it! If you get an assortment of randomly-sized pebbles and run them through a sieve, is the end result still random? No. The smaller pebbles will have been filtered out from the rest. This is basically how natural selection works. So the fact that mutations are random doesn't matter, as long as you have a way of "sieving" the detrimental mutations from the neutral or beneficial mutations, they add up to produce significant changes.

Do you understand?

 

[FearGod]

But that's exactly it! If you get an assortment of randomly-sized pebbles and run them through a sieve, is the end result still random? No. The smaller pebbles will have been filtered out from the rest. This is basically how natural selection works. So the fact that mutations are random doesn't matter, as long as you have a way of "sieving" the detrimental mutations from the neutral or beneficial mutations, they add up to produce significant changes.

Do you understand?

You are assuming that the smaller pebbles do exist, so it is the pebbles is forcing the outcome and not the sieve.

The outcome will naturally happen but how the small pebbles came to existence is the issue.

The DNA complexity isn't that simple to compare it to pebbles and sieve.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are assuming that the smaller pebbles do exist, so it is the pebbles is forcing the outcome and not the sieve.

That makes absolutely no sense. If we get an assortment of randomly sized pebbles, it makes sense that some would fit through a sieve and others would not. The pebbles are not "forcing" anything. It's the sieve that sorts one set of pebbles from another.

The outcome will naturally happen but how the small pebbles came to existence is the issue.

In the case of pebbles, erosion. In the case of living organisms, mutation. In either case, the cause the variation is irrelevant. What matters is that there is a process which selects and separates them.

The DNA complexity isn't that simple to compare it to pebbles and sieve.

I'm not comparing the complexity of DNA to anything. I'm comparing the process of natural selection selecting from a random assortment of living organisms to a sieve selecting from a random assortment of sizes of pebbles. It really is that simple.

Do you or do you not understand that when you sieve something, just as when you apply any kind of selective pressure to any random assortment of things, what you end up with is more specified than the whole? This is very simple logic.

 

[idav]

You are assuming that the smaller pebbles do exist, so it is the pebbles is forcing the outcome and not the sieve.

The outcome will naturally happen but how the small pebbles came to existence is the issue.

The DNA complexity isn't that simple to compare it to pebbles and sieve.

At the core dna isnt all that complex, just various combinations of four different proteins creates millions of species. As the combining of the four letters gets more complex it can make millions of combinations and can be very hard to track but it is very basic at fundamental levels.

Of course we come in on the process after nature has been working on it for billions of years, the natural response is "how the hell". So far humans tell us the answer to that question is evolution.

Even matter, the atom, is very simple in concept. Add one more electron and proton and you get a different element. Keep adding one electron and proton and you get all the chemicals and molecules that make up every single thing we see and experience. It may be hard to believe but we account for the simpler beginnings and account for the path to its current complexity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Once again, cracking open a book on evolutionary biology would render this thread irrelevant.

Yes, I realize this will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Alceste]

Once again, cracking open a book on evolutionary biology would render this thread irrelevant.

Yes, I realize this will fall on deaf ears.

I only come here to practice explaining evolution to children.