Theory of evolution in practice

The theory of evolution is that the strong survive and the weak die. And according to the theory of evolution, that's the way it should be.

Perhaps that is why so many Christians find the theory of evolution to be morally objectionable. Christians believe that the strong should use their strength to help the weak, not to suppress them or grind them down.

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth."

 

That's not the theory of evolution. What you've described is a misunderstanding of natural selection.

 

That's not really what the theory of evolution states.

What you should say is that individuals in a population who are more suited to reproduction will be more likely to reproduce, which is essentially tautological. Strength is advantageous to reproduction.

The theory of evolution has no concern for what should be, only what actually is.

I'm fairly confident it's because it contradicts their ideas of creation.

 

Actually the theory of evolution is that those more capable of surviving long enough to leave viable offspring will pass their genes down to the next generations.

Moral philosophies may object to that, and I see nothing wrong with refusing to accept the inevitability of nature or health- infertility treatments, innoculations- so many things are examples of humans continued struggle to survive.

And wierdly- all of that is an example of evolution at work too.

 

What is odd to me in this theory of evolution, is that we have species like sharks, which have basically remained unchanged for close to 350 million years...yet other species evolved more dramatically. Why didn't the shark "mutate"...if indeed random mutation is the core cause of evolving species. What is it within the sharks DNA and other species..which resist random mutatiion?

I believe that "mutations" are not random at all....

What is usually meant by randomness with respect to mutagenesis is that mutations occur regardless of their immediate adaptive value. Their location and frequency has been long known to be nonrandom.
Mutations therefore are not random but preferential.

Although not a scientific theory...admittedly this is purely philosophical...but I propose evolution favored the advancement of a sentient being...a grand design that life...seeks to ponder itself...not merely exist..but to attain consciousness...sentience. To be self-aware.

 

Well sharks have not stopped mutating, different eras have seen sharks of various size shapes and adaptions. What has not changed is the basic body plan of the shark

Yes and no I would argue. In organisms we are generally see the benefits of positive mutations. So in terms of mutation the rate is largely unchanged. To the observer we are going to weighted towards what appears to be beneficial mutations

 

A shark swimming in oceans 300 million years ago, would be recognizable by a child...as a shark....

It has remained largely unchanged using an evolutionary definition of complexity...for example dinosaurs evolving into birds...
and the fact that mutagenesis is indeed preferential ...is sound science as well...I merely expounded on the concept.

Would a child recognize a robin flying in the backyard as a cousin of T-Rex? Dinosaurs to birds is an example of complex evolution..what differentials there are in modern sharks vs. their prehistoric cousins...is not an example of complexity....consciousness is complex evolution. It's possible that birds evolved on their own also, separate from dinosaurs...again a theory.

 

The Catholic Church does not find evolution objectionable, probably because it doesn't make the mistake to connect it with morals (evolution does not equal Social-Darwinism). And most Christians are Catholic - as you say that includes yourself.

 

My understanding is that mutation is pretty random, and most mutations make no real difference, and some are actually bad, and only a few are actually a benefit.

I have no problem with the science of it all.

What I have a problem is those who apply it to relations between humans.

 

Simply put some organisms do not evolve into more complex forms...mutagenesis leading to complexity favors sentience.

This is my proposal..and their is sound science underlying the preferentialily of mutagenesis...essentially defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics which favors increasing entropy...decreasing complexity. A messy room does not clean up itself...someone makes the conscious choice to clean it....DNA makes a preferential choice to advance in complexity in some organisms, and not others...it is programmed for sentience...my argument anyway.

 

It isn't...randomness...there are hotspots for preferential DNA mutagenesis...it's been done in the laboratory.

 

Sharks fit their evolutionary niche so well that any significant mutation is not beneficial, therefore there's no pressure to adapt, and they have marked time, in evolutionary terms, in mch the same way as the crocodilians.

 

ya that's certainly true to some extent but it would wrong to say they haven't changed, their form is excellent for their aquatic environment but size has changed according to need...and behaviour and internal changes can't detected from fossil records...

 

Babies who use the ignore list to avoid hearing facts should not be allowed on adult conversation boards.

 

This means homosexuals are doomed. (10 points for using the word 'tautological' )





T

 

If that's the case, where are they coming from?

 

Good question, if you find out, please let all of us know.

 

I'm not convinced that homosexuality has any genetic origin. Certainly, no one has proven that it does.

Homosexuals claim they were "born" that way. But is that the whole story?

I know a lot of boys are molested by men. Does this have any influence on making them homosexual when they get older?

 

It has to do with Nurture versus Nature; and, not only that, but it also requires sufficient social morals for free, to engender a society where "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" can become a free, social reality on Earth.

 

Yeah, I'm not talking about Communism, I'm talking about Christianity. Not even close to the same concept.

 

Funny how conservative Christians who object most strongly to the reality of evolution also strongly cling to social Darwinism.

 

Right, and I just said that wasn't true. Conservative Christians do NOT believe in Social Darwinism. Please try to pay attention to what I have said.

 

You said it so it must be true huh?

So then who are these people who keep voting for the GOP?

 

tautolgical I had to look that one up...