03 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyYour version of evolution has a starting point of zero.
At what stage of human evolution would a human or ape have less than a whole heart and why?
You make no sense.
Human organs, in your theory, would never have a chance to evolve. The human would be dead first.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3That is why humans have whole hearts.
If the heart was not created whole, a human would die.
Ignore it.
I might ignore your ignorant rant. I note that you haven't bothered to head over to Wikipedia and learn something. Are you scared it will make you an atheist if you read more than two words of science?
Originally posted by chaney3You had my attention when you were talking about creation as theological determinism. God "created" the big bang, and then sat back and watched the universe evolve. This is an actual, defensible, intellectual position on which two reasonable people can argue. But this gibberish here with pieces of organs is so easily debunked by any biology textbook or website, it reflects a complete dearth of basic knowledge. A failure of our education system.
Your version of evolution has a starting point of zero.
Human organs, in your theory, would never have a chance to evolve. The human would be dead first.
If you care, just look it up. The data extremely, overwhelmingly compelling. If you can put forth an alternative hypothesis, propose a theoretical framework to test this hypothesis, and generate evidence to support it, as I asked earlier, then we can discuss the potential implications of what you're even talking about.
Or you can believe whatever you want. But you're not persuading anyone with this junk.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassYou have admitted that science does not know origin of life.
You had my attention when you were talking about creation as theological determinism. God "created" the big bang, and then sat back and watched the universe evolve. This is an actual, defensible, intellectual position on which two reasonable people can argue. But this gibberish here with pieces of organs is so easily debunked by any biology textbook or web ...[text shortened]... about.
Or you can believe whatever you want. But you're not persuading anyone with this junk.
I was only asking how it's possible that the first creatures were able to survive with incomplete organs, before evolution kicked in.
I think it's a reasonable question, and not junk at all.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Look it up. It's taught in grade school.
You have admitted that science does not know origin of life.
I was only asking how it's possible that the first creatures were able to survive with incomplete organs, before evolution kicked in.
I think it's a reasonable question, and not junk at all.
03 Feb 17
I once heard a quote from a surgeon...."Yes, I cut this person open and did my job, but once the incision was closed, the result is out of my hands".
Why would you assume that evolution must include healing of the body? And repair?
You are giving intelligence to evolution.
03 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Healing/repair OBVIOUSLY generally increases probability of survival thus increases probability of passing on the genes therefore natural selection would generally select for genes/mutations for it therefore healing/repair evolved; obviously no supernatural intelligence required nor implied there.
Why would you assume that evolution must include healing of the body? And repair?
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyYou have just given evolution an intelligence. You are implying that evolution purposely assisted in survival.
Healing/repair OBVIOUSLY generally increases probability of survival thus increases probability of passing on the genes therefore natural selection would generally select for genes/mutations for it therefore healing/repair evolved; obviously no supernatural intelligence required nor implied there.
This is a monumental leap.
Originally posted by chaney3Nope, I obviously didn't. Random mutations and natural selection obviously don't have intelligence.
You have just given evolution an intelligence.
.
You are implying that evolution purposely assisted in survival.
Nope. That is a completely idiotic assertion. Evolution has no purpose.
And if you understood what evolution is, it isn't about the survival of the individual but of the gene and that isn't a 'purpose' but rather a mindless tendency.
What you say is like saying that saying gravity pulls things down is implying it is a 'purpose' of gravity to pull things down.
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyIt sounds like you are giving evolution an intellect, to know what must take place for survival.
Nope, I obviously didn't. Random mutations and natural selection obviously don't have intelligence.You are implying that evolution purposely assisted in survival.
Nope. That is a completely idiotic assertion. Evolution has no purpose.
And if you understood what evolution is, it isn't about the survival of the individual but of the gen ...[text shortened]... t saying gravity pulls things down is implying it is a 'purpose' of gravity to pull things down.
This excludes "random".
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28862
03 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3To limit evolution to randomness merely demonstrates you haven't bothered to learn what evolution is.
If evolution has no intellect, and is random, then evolution would not care about survival.
Humans gave that attribute to evolution, as an attempt to give it merit, where merit is not due to something "random".
Go away, read up on the theory of evolution, then come back with better questions.