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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tis where the evidence points.
"fleshy features"
As stated before.
Where did you get that from?
What do you mean by that?I presented a simplification, not evidence for genetic programming.
Genetic traits and common mutations and so forth.
I could take the time out of my day to explain the process to you, but will you absorb the information?
This I doubt.
Which evidence? what mutations that caused the brain to be developed.
Can you prove if it was due to the stupid random mutations and not a guided one?
What buttocks mean? the scene and the shape is received by the men eyes and it's converted
to electrical signal by the optic nerve, so what attracted the male actually is an electrical signal
which is perceived in the brain as ta sexy body, so we aren't different than a machine and men
are programmed to be attracted to women by the scene and the image of a female.
From reality, If colorful duck then ,,,,, if not .......
What do you mean by that?
I challenge you to bring here a valuable information to prove me wrong, but you can't,
so better for you to play GTA instead.
Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation?
We are each "believers" in our own view of the way things came to exist in this world. I cannot impose my view on you and I assure you that you will never impose your view on me.
Science, when it comes to evolution, is blind IMO; it relies on supposition and assumption, and it has no real solid evidence to substantiate a single claim for macro-evolution.
They cannot apply to evolution the same kinds of rigorous testing methods that they use for other fields, because no one was around to observe and document the supposed evolutionary changes that were said to take place all those millions of years ago.
The fossil record isn't telling them much either and imagination fuels computer generated images to convince the uneducated that it is all factual. None of it is.
I see evidence for adaptation within species, but that only explains changes in color or minor external changes to facilitate a new food source or change of environment.
I can present evidence that mutations did happen, regardless of whether or not they were guided.
Can you show me evidence that those mutations are guided? Testable, verifiable and repeatable?
Where you find this connection, I don't know.
Reactions and feelings can be broken down into electric signals, therefore it's programmed into us?
So because there are perceived similarities, it has to be programmed? No other option?
Wonder how many things I can apply that to... We may be living in the matrix...
I meant that you conflated my previously presented simplification of the obvious difference between people and ducks to be some sort of genetically programmed god anomaly.
Literally a google search away.
Are you sure? We do not know about the thinking method of ducks as well as their preferences.I feel confident in saying that a human mind is far more developed than a ducks mind, and in many different ways.
A human standard for beauty can be based on many different attributes, e.g. skin color, eyes, hair, height, body tone, fleshy features, fetishes and so forth.
With ducks it's just a = b, colorfulness = attractiveness.
Yeah how did a flower with 12 inch corolla and bird with 12 inch of beak developed? That requires some study of biology. Were you ever a biology student?"Unintended"? How would you describe the process that led to the interaction of the orchid wasp with the flower that it counts on for pollination?
but the thing is, the vast majority of mutations are detrimental.....not improving the species but destroying it.
"Unintended"? How would you describe the process that led to the interaction of the orchid wasp with the flower that it counts on for pollination?
How did the orchid know that it needed to not only mimic the appearance of the female wasp on the rim of its flower, but it also needed to duplicate its pheromone so as to attract the male to mate with it? Pollination ensues whilst the wasp is unaware that the orchid has taken advantage of him.
In the picture you see that the orchid has attracted more than one "suiter". Please explain how that happened without any intelligent direction?
I don't doubt natural selection at all...what I doubt is the long story that goes with it and the extent to which natural selection goes way beyond anything remotely believable as the cause of all inherited characteristics.
I see adaptation within species offered as proof of organic evolution when they are two entirely different things. Micro-evolution is NOT proof of macro-evolution.
Well, you see it isn't as "proven" as they would have you believe. If you look up "Speciation" in Wiki, you will see something glaringly obvious.....the fish remained fish...the flies remained flies.
The Creator doesn't tell us much about himself, but he tells us a lot about his creation.
Humankind have an innate need to worship a higher being. Why would we evolve a trait like that in every culture?
What survival advantage is found in art, literature, theatre, music or poetry?
Why is mathematics seen everywhere in the natural world? Is the Fibonacci sequence just a fluke?
You're the one who said that evidences prove that it was due to random mutations, so the burden of proof is on you.
Explain how the random mutations developed our brains.
Who did the programming? don't you see science in our creation?
Parts of us are programmed, but we have still the free will, for example men are programmed
to be attracted to women but we can beat it by not doing so, but only when we want to.
And do you think aging and death was naturally selected for the survival of species, it's very evident
that it's genetically programmed, we're created by science and not by the science of randomness.
How genetics work? what it proves ? what's your point of it?
Are you sure? We do not know about the thinking method of ducks as well as their preferences.
It proves itself...that's the point... Did you read any of those articles? There was a one for kids, if you need a simplification.
I have wasted enough time with you, you don't even know what you're debating, that's a childish behavior.
to use your fashion design analogy;
Fashion houses could decide they wanted to save on expensive creative departments, simply use the power of evolution- make random changes to their clothes and let the public select the ones they like best, and repeat.
The 'best' designs will be selected, but they are not 'better'. The vast majority of random changes will be deleterious, people select the 'least ugly' design every time, until the outfit is totally unwearable
We know that vastly more random changes in DNA, also lead to inferior rather than superior designs. The odds of producing a significantly superior design by mistake is vanishingly small.
Without a predetermined goal, design, plan, entropy takes over. A trend towards dysfunctionality.
so what guides random changes? Who determines whether a random change is better than the way things were?
Selection is a choice...so who chooses?....
and what precipitates a choice for the better design if the creature was perfectly functional to begin with?
What happens when the design is in its transition stage and the duck (or whatever creature you name) doesn't like the color scheme or design in the process?
Yes we know that when humans make intelligent choices many things improve.....intelligence drives the changes for the better......so how many things improve by random chance in our lives?
Can you estimate the odds for that?
Beneficial "flukes" happen but they are so rare that they tend to be spoken about for a long time.
This makes no sense at all to me.
This is where it gets sticky.....evolution happens because of random changes, you say.....so what guides random changes? Who determines whether a random change is better than the way things were?....and if the change takes place over a long period of time, at what point does the creature become satisfied with its appearance or function?
Selection is a choice...so who chooses?....and what precipitates a choice for the better design if the creature was perfectly functional to begin with?
What happens when the design is in its transition stage and the duck (or whatever creature you name) doesn't like the color scheme or design in the process?
Yes we know that when humans make intelligent choices many things improve.....intelligence drives the changes for the better......so how many things improve by random chance in our lives?
Can you estimate the odds for that?
Beneficial "flukes" happen but they are so rare that they tend to be spoken about for a long time.
Who pre-determines the goal without an intelligence to guide the choice? Who furnishes the improvements without direction when choices have to be made about such improvements?
This makes no sense at all to me.
I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%
42% (Gallup). Astounding! Is it not? It is quite a backward society.I'm curious - do you think that over in the USA the majority of people genuinely don't accept evolution? This certainly isn't the case over here in the UK, where I'd say it's about 5-10%
42% (Gallup). Astounding! Is it not? It is quite a backward society.
"In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx