• 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!

If evolution were true

tarekabdo12

Active Member
"
ScreenShot005.jpg


Source: Wikipedia

Nice information, I think I follow the intelligent design school, yet I don't like to put nyself in categories.
 

tarekabdo12

Active Member
When I read the title, I thought it ment: Does evolution efface God or not? I think no. Does anybody has a different view?
 

tarekabdo12

Active Member
My favorite is "if Evolution were true then moms would have 3 arms" ;) (as a mother of 5, I think it's funny)



  • I think so also, it's funny but points to an important issue. Random mutations must have led to wide variation between persons which wouldn't endanger their lives and so they won't be lost by natural selection. For example, why do we find all humans with only two hands(not three or four or even 1), variable number of teeth, eyes, variable sizes of noses with more wide difference.
  • The unity of the design actually refutes the random nature of mutations as a mechanism for evolution of creatures.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
If ToE were true then humans (homo-sapiens) would have webbed feet and tiger claws.

. . :rolleyes:

God didn´t prepare that kind of evolution for us :shrug:

If creationism is true, why the only way a lot of parasites can live is in the eyeballs of poor african children that are rendered blind because of this interaction? Where this parasites this way from the very begining?

If that is your idea of perfect creation of a God that made everything for us I am far from impressed.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
That's true, natural mutations would favour this, I think. Also, wings, huge muscles.

Not really. Biological evolution is not about adding more and more advantages from generation to generation.

In my opinion the choice of words is slightly unfortunate, since the popular understanding of "evolution" implies that there is always a definite direction and a clear advantage in the change from one species to another.

In reality, there is a sort of cost associated to things such as claws, wings or enhanced speed. To use an example that your avatar reminds me of, being a powerful predator involves having considerable strength, speed and natural weapons - but that by its turn demands a fairly active metabolism and availability of adequate prey. Those demands may easily turn into disadvantages if the environment does not allow for them. When that happens, mutations that favor less active lifestyles become advantageous, for those breeds do not starve quite as easily and have a better chance of surviving and having descendants.
 

SPACKlick

New Member
In my opinion the choice of words is slightly unfortunate, since the popular understanding of "evolution" implies that there is always a definite direction and a clear advantage in the change from one species to another.
Agreed, this directionality was in the public conciousness before ToE was conceived properly and then when it was dumbed down for the public became co-opted into it. It's a pain.

The best way to talk about evolution is not about what evolves or what survives but what dies. In a population, there is variation accross individuals and some of them will have more offspring than others. Those who have least offspring do so because of both bad luck and being outcompeted. The variation in the population shifts away from anything which reduces the chances of leaving lots of offspring.

So simple, the direction is AWAY from FAILURE and that's all. Why must people fail to understand that?
 
Top