Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Announcements
Roosh Articles
The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Elipe" data-source="post: 1475986" data-attributes="member: 17998"><p>For me, this was what killed evolution for me. Not only do you have to have this statistically improbable set of random mutations, they have to also even more statistically improbably be a set of random mutations <em>all working in concerted effort toward a common design schematic.</em></p><p></p><p>Also, natural selection is a culling effect, not an additive effect. Natural selection does not favor the fittest, but rather, the most <em>average.</em> That is, the "good enough" to reproduce. Think the bell curve: most people in the middle of the bell curve end up reproducing, even when female hypergamy would have you think it's just the top 20% of men. But when you go out into the streets and see all the children that are clearly not well-sired, that illusion flies out the window very quickly. Heck, even the adults themselves don't look very well-sired. You don't see many Chad Thunderfists walking around. Just look at Portland. And that's with human intelligence guiding the reproductive act. A peahen isn't going to wait until it can find the absolute perfect Mr. Peacock; it's just going to mate with the first peacock that meets its standards.</p><p></p><p>This tendency for populations to gravitate toward a genetic mean is actually a biological mechanism to ensure the stability of the gene pool. In fact, biology shows us that there are many mechanisms in place that are designed to <em>mitigate</em> the effect of mutations, because mutations are rarely beneficial. Better instead to maintain the integrity of the gene pool so that more creatures are born with a lower chance of some kind of debilitating or self-sterilizing disease. Just like how in microbiology, there are cellular mechanisms for preventing mutations during mitosis, there are also macrobiological mechanisms to stabilize genetics.</p><p></p><p>But they don't teach you that in biology classes because that flies in the face of the theory of common descent by evolution. Evolutionary biology says mutations are good, but it says so out of necessity because that's the only way they can explain their theory. But in reality, mutations are bad. You do not want to have mutations. You want to be like your father and your mother, because then you have similar fitness as them. And if your father and mother reproduced to have you, then it really does benefit you to be more like them, because then you are more likely to reproduce as well.</p><p></p><p>Sounds to me like biology points a lot more to "Go, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," rather than "goo to you via the zoo".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Elipe, post: 1475986, member: 17998"] For me, this was what killed evolution for me. Not only do you have to have this statistically improbable set of random mutations, they have to also even more statistically improbably be a set of random mutations [I]all working in concerted effort toward a common design schematic.[/I] Also, natural selection is a culling effect, not an additive effect. Natural selection does not favor the fittest, but rather, the most [I]average.[/I] That is, the "good enough" to reproduce. Think the bell curve: most people in the middle of the bell curve end up reproducing, even when female hypergamy would have you think it's just the top 20% of men. But when you go out into the streets and see all the children that are clearly not well-sired, that illusion flies out the window very quickly. Heck, even the adults themselves don't look very well-sired. You don't see many Chad Thunderfists walking around. Just look at Portland. And that's with human intelligence guiding the reproductive act. A peahen isn't going to wait until it can find the absolute perfect Mr. Peacock; it's just going to mate with the first peacock that meets its standards. This tendency for populations to gravitate toward a genetic mean is actually a biological mechanism to ensure the stability of the gene pool. In fact, biology shows us that there are many mechanisms in place that are designed to [I]mitigate[/I] the effect of mutations, because mutations are rarely beneficial. Better instead to maintain the integrity of the gene pool so that more creatures are born with a lower chance of some kind of debilitating or self-sterilizing disease. Just like how in microbiology, there are cellular mechanisms for preventing mutations during mitosis, there are also macrobiological mechanisms to stabilize genetics. But they don't teach you that in biology classes because that flies in the face of the theory of common descent by evolution. Evolutionary biology says mutations are good, but it says so out of necessity because that's the only way they can explain their theory. But in reality, mutations are bad. You do not want to have mutations. You want to be like your father and your mother, because then you have similar fitness as them. And if your father and mother reproduced to have you, then it really does benefit you to be more like them, because then you are more likely to reproduce as well. Sounds to me like biology points a lot more to "Go, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," rather than "goo to you via the zoo". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Announcements
Roosh Articles
The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity
Top
