@KellyJay
You are correct. If there was an abundance of food on lower branches
which NEVER ran out then being tall would not be advantageous.
However throughout the animal kingdom competition for food is pretty
high. For most of human history we have been threatened with starvation
too. I would have thought any animal that improves its ability to obtain
food significantly increases its chance of passing on its genes.
@wolfgang59 saidThat still doesn't translate into altering DNA even if food were to suddenly change
@KellyJay
You are correct. If there was an abundance of food on lower branches
which NEVER ran out then being tall would not be advantageous.
However throughout the animal kingdom competition for food is pretty
high. For most of human history we have been threatened with starvation
too. I would have thought any animal that improves its ability to obtain
food significantly increases its chance of passing on its genes.
to its only high up trees out of reach of many. That will not force anything to occur
differently in DNA it will simply go on as it always has. In a naturalistic world there
cannot be some built in software directing alterations due to critical needs among
lifeforms as the environment changes. Each new feature would have to arrive
independently of environmental changes, and if what is being suggested about
just those best suited for these changes move on, they would have to not only
show up independently, but prior to the needs even being there when required.
The animals with the heavier fur couldn't wait till its really cold outside before the
small changes over time started working out the need for thicker fur, if it isn't
there when the need arises small changes over time simply will not produce it
quick enough. Not to mention we have just moved back to there is a need DNA
please fix life to meet it comes back into play.
23 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidI agree.
That still doesn't translate into altering DNA even if food were to suddenly change
to its only high up trees out of reach of many. That will not force anything to occur
differently in DNA it will simply go on as it always has. In a naturalistic world there
cannot be some built in software directing alterations due to critical needs among
lifeforms as the environment cha ...[text shortened]... ion we have just moved back to there is a need DNA
please fix life to meet it comes back into play.
Please read my previous posts.
Natural selection DOES NOT change DNA.
Consider this:
when food becomes short do you agree or not agree that taller animals will survive better?
when the climate becomes colder do you agree or not agree that having slightly thicker fur an advantage?
It's just small changes.
Which is why Natural Selection cannot prevent
species going extinct in times of radical change.
23 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 saidI agree, but which came first the cold or the fur? If fur then is there some designer
I agree.
Please read my previous posts.
Natural selection DOES NOT change DNA.
Consider this:
when food becomes short do you agree or not agree that taller animals will survive better?
when the climate becomes colder do you agree or not agree that having slightly thicker fur an advantage?
It's just small changes.
Which is why Natural Selection cannot prevent
species going extinct in times of radical change.
pushing out next generations required traits before they become necessary? The
ways these things are discussed you'd think there was a plan and purpose behind
each of the small changes that prolong some life millions of years earlier before
the needs were there. Simply amazing after the small changes are all strung
together with other, completely unrelated changes, that they happen to give life
thicker fur or longer necks before the need arises. Since if the need was there long
before the changes, and it was life or death without them, evolution wouldn't
recognize the need, care that there was one, or plan to fix it.
@kellyjay saidBased on your questions it's excruciatingly clear that you still are unable to understand even the basics of natural selection - even though it's been explained and re-explained to you countless times.
I agree, but which came first the cold or the fur? If fur then is there some designer
pushing out next generations required traits before they become necessary? The
ways these things are discussed you'd think there was a plan and purpose behind
each of the small changes that prolong some life millions of years earlier before
the needs were there. Simply amazing after the ...[text shortened]... h without them, evolution wouldn't
recognize the need, care that there was one, or plan to fix it.
23 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidAnimals within a species will have differing densities of fur.
I agree, but which came first the cold or the fur? If fur then is there some designer
pushing out next generations required traits before they become necessary?
If the climate gets hotter then those with less fur have an edge.
If the climate gets colder than those with more fur have an edge.
No designer necessary.
@thinkofone saidI have seen the explanations and read the links presented if they actually addressed
Based on your questions it's excruciatingly clear that you still are unable to understand even the basics of natural selection - even though it's been explained and re-explained to you countless times.
the concerns I'd stop bringing them up.
24 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 saidYou really don't even see the question.
Animals within a species will have differing densities of fur.
If the climate gets hotter then those with less fur have an edge.
If the climate gets colder than those with more fur have an edge.
No designer necessary.
24 Nov 18
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI believe you when you say that you've read them.
I have seen the explanations and read the links presented if they actually addressed
the concerns I'd stop bringing them up.
However, it is clear that you've come out of it without understand even the basics.
If you want to discuss a topic intelligently, it's incumbent on you to at least have an understanding of the basics. Your questions would be very different if you did have a basic understanding of natural selection.
24 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidI'm obviously not as smart as you then.
You really don't even see the question.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Nov 18
@thinkofone saidThe ad hominem arrives right on que as expected.
Based on your questions it's excruciatingly clear that you still are unable to understand even the basics of natural selection - even though it's been explained and re-explained to you countless times.
@dj2becker saidKJ obviously doesn't understand natural selection. It behooves him to understand this fact.
The ad hominem arrives right on que as expected.
How exactly is trying to help someone to realize that they don't understand something an ad hom?
24 Nov 18
@thinkofone saidI understand it I disagree with the amount of things that it is given credit for.
KJ obviously doesn't understand natural selection. It behooves him to understand this fact.
How exactly is trying to help someone to realize that they don't understand something an ad hom?
@kellyjay saidI understand that you like to think you do , but when you post things like the following, it's clear that you don't.
I understand it I disagree with the amount of things that it is given credit for.
I agree, but which came first the cold or the fur? If fur then is there some designer
pushing out next generations required traits before they become necessary? The
ways these things are discussed you'd think there was a plan and purpose behind
each of the small changes that prolong some life millions of years earlier before
the needs were there. Simply amazing after the small changes are all strung
together with other, completely unrelated changes, that they happen to give life
thicker fur or longer necks before the need arises.
If you understood the concept you wouldn't write things like that.
It's akin to someone asking, "If Jesus is dead, then how can He abide in anyone?".
Then having the resurrection explained to him.
Only to have him repeatedly say, "I understand the resurrection, but if Jesus is dead, then how can He abide in anyone?".
Do you think that this individual actually understands the resurrection?
24 Nov 18
@thinkofone saidYou have no clue
I understand that you like to think you do , but when you post things like the following, it's clear that you don't.
[quote]I agree, but which came first the cold or the fur? If fur then is there some designer
pushing out next generations required traits before they become necessary? The
ways these things are discussed you'd think there was a plan and purpose behind ...[text shortened]... an He abide in anyone?".
Do you think that this individual actually understands the resurrection?