Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
What has really happened is that theory is called fact, by some. That is not the same as proving it.
Scientists need to prove it first. That means take a cell and see if it 'evolves' into life like we know it. Or take an animal and see if it 'evolves' into a different animal. Or even to see if life, can come from non life , on it's own. Both of these are just scientists ideas. Scientists has to go against the evidence that we do have , that life comes from life, and a dog is a dog, and a human is a human.
Oh, it's all relative. I'm tired of the endless Popperian bitching about support rather than proof and things only being true within an increasingly stringent band of probability in the upper 5% of a given distribution. I'm talking colloquially here. Fact is fact. Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Done.
The examination of any simple Punnett square will illustrate this proof. It requires no greater introspection than an apple falling from a tree.
Very well. You may fund my laboratory for the next 1 billion years. I warn you though: protozoic environments don't come cheap.
Done.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Anything else?
Not in the slightest. Your touchstone of creationism is a flash-bulb snapshot in the dark. Turn on the light and see what happens.
No evidence......just hocus pocus....creationist magic...
Theories explain the observable facts.
GeoffP has given a recent example:
There is the well know example of a white moth that was common in England before the industrial revolution, but became grey in less than 100 years of negative selection against the white ones in very polluted (by dark coal dust and smog) London air. (Birds found and ate the white ones much more easily on the sooty surfaces.) BTW, now that the coal soot is not part of London’s air the white moth variation is again dominate.
Also some decades ago in Brazil some of the small fish, which reached sexual maturity in about a year and laid a few eggs because they were often eaten by the larger fish that also lived in a stream below the waterfall were move above the water fall. Then evolutionary selection favored those that delayed sexual maturity and grew much larger, and laid many eggs. (They did not need to quickly reproduce a few before they were eaten.) In about 10 years, the now above water fall fish were several times larger with sexual maturity coming at about 3 years of age and rapidly growing in numbers in the environment free from predators that lived below the falls.
I think this dramatic change in size, age of sexual maturity, and egg laying in only 10 years may be the shortest known demonstration of evolution in large, complex animals. There are millions of examples of single cell animals that have evolved when their environment has been changed. - You almost certainly have run such an experiment yourself, if you have ever taken an antibiotic. (A drastic change in the germ's environment.)
The reason you are told to continue taking many days after you are "cured" is that some of the bacterial are evolving resistance to it. If you stop when "cured" their numbers will grow and you will be sick again. The common use of anti-biotics in animal feed etc. has evolved germs that are now immune to the three most common types of anti-biotics - It is a very serious problem - a war between man and germs and in the long run it appears as if the germs are using evolution to win the war.
I have also posted about the “Santa Catalina guinea pigs.” They are few in number (about 40 – all the vegetation of their tiny, mainly rocky off shore island will support) and the only mamuals on the island. That Island was once (during last ice age when sea level was much lower) connected to the Brazilain mainland. They are less than half the size of the mainland guine pigs they evolved from (limited food favored the smaller body) and have evolved several other physical features that aid them to survive on this tiny, rocky off shore island, but I forget the details. – find my prior posts.
In fact there are many dozens of examples of multi-cellular animal evolution that have been well documented.* In some cases the environmental change that caused the selection of a new form was an intentional experiment; in some cases the environmental change was man-made but mot done to demonstrate evolution, (Industral soot in Londond); and in some cases, man had nothing to do with it (ice age lowering of sea level, cutting off a small group and stressing them differently with limited food supply and no predators so population was limited only by the food supply - the smaller individuals were selected for.)
*Your ignorance of the facts does not disprove the fact of evolution. With litterally millions of demonstrations of evolution, it is hard to understand how you can be so ignorant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
This is not ignorance of the facts. And your example of the white moth, demonstrates that. The moth is still a moth, and conditions can change things like color, size, diet, etc. but when conditions change to what they were the moths return as they were.
This is exactly what I have been saying. This is not 'evolution this is just adapting to conditions or breeding. And does not result in a moth becoming a bird, or anything else. The DNA allows for some changes and variety, but a moth is still a moth.
And you miss the point. The mechanism of evolution is well demosntarted, but if you want for example a fish to grow legs, walk on land, become an air breather etc. that will take millions of years. None the less in this case most of the intermediate stages are still living.
Obviously, you don't understand evolution or natural selection. You deny scientific facts, scientific theory and scientific method without providing a shred of evidence to dispute them. The reason being you can't disprove any of the observable examples or cited references given to you.
Do You Believe In Magic?
Last edited:
Note that all these animals that you say are intermediate, all survive nicely and do not show the mistakes that mutations or 'evolution' say would be there. Where are these ones? For fins to move down the body and eventually into legs near the head, may look like to scientists that is what happened. Is not scientific. If you have fins at your sides near the middle of the body( you have to explain how they got there) 'evolution would not know it had to move these fins in a linear direction and at the same time change the use of these fins into load bearing legs. 'Evolution' because it is random would make many errors on the way, placing these on different parts of the body before it got to where they are useful as legs. Does that also mean that a fin on the back of animal, also 'evolved' into a leg on top of it's head, so now it has three legs. Besides these legs would have to have the muscles to change and the nerves to change and the configuration of the bones etc. This would all take many many errors for this to happen. But these are not found. This linear placement of parts is a result of planning. Creation.
Because this is scientists ideas, it really is up to them to prove it. Lets see if it happened that way. Put a fish in a large aquarium , with sand at one end and see if it develops legs and walks out of there.
Scientist by causing all sorts of mutations, does not show that these mutations happened in the real world. Would these mutations that scientists are artificially creating be the same in the natural world? With the same frequency for example. And actually science would create something totally different than we have now. Because why would 'evolution' follow the same path as it was supposed to have done before. Even the feeding method with the experiment would be different. Could it survive in the wild? There is no competition for the food supply. So could you call this new animal creation or what?
This is all hypothetical reasoning, what the world needs is true facts, and proof.
Last edited:
'Evolution' is an idea made by scientists. I don't deny scientific facts. I use science facts all the time. I don't always agree with the interpolation of these facts. Id o understand scientific theory, because that is what we are talking about here. Now if the scientific method was used with this discussion there would not be a problem at all. Scientists, have deviated with the scientific method in this question.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
It does not, because (1) none but one species on this planet believes in any god-myths and (2) theism is, itself, not a naturally occuring phenomenon, therefore claiming it is the result of "natural selection" is a fallacy.
It is also countered by the fact that the percentage of godbots in the world is decreasing, not increasing. The world is becoming steadily more atheistic. One day no one will believe in that paleolithic crappola. It's just a shame it won't happen in our lifetimes.
Just because you happen to talk about something does not mean you understand it at all.
Last edited: