Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2012, 01:33 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.

You do realize this is an argument against Christian evolutionary beliefs, right?

(07-11-2012 04:36 PM)Humakt Wrote:  I missed you contradicticting your self in that later post, I was answering your OP were you state evolution is immoral, I accept you later say that it cant be immoral without a God, so Im left more confused by your clarification.

There is no argument. In the context of the argument, evolution is immoral.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: Subject too long
(08-11-2012 01:33 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.

You do realize this is an argument against Christian evolutionary beliefs, right?

(07-11-2012 04:36 PM)Humakt Wrote:  I missed you contradicticting your self in that later post, I was answering your OP were you state evolution is immoral, I accept you later say that it cant be immoral without a God, so Im left more confused by your clarification.

There is no argument. In the context of the argument, evolution is immoral.
What on earth does that mean? Have you become a YEC and not told anyone.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2012, 09:16 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 09:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there is no 'supposed to'. There are errors in copying, there are changes during chemical reactions.


Again, there is no 'should' and there is no group selection. Individual organisms survive and reproduce based on their winnings genetic lottery. And that's what it is, a probabilistic sieving of survival. Genes that are advantageous to individuals are passed on.
Agree. It's POV of "our" outcome. It needs to be phrased in probabilistic terms. It *can* be seen as "advantageous" to *us*, because we are biased, as WE are here to talk about it.

Instead of "group, one could say the "collective", (as in the Borg), or the "hive" (as in bees). If things are advantageous for the collective, it promotes survival of the collective. For example, even slime-mold, and beehives could be said to be "intelligent", if one looks at them as a collective. This actually influences "morality", or anthropomorphic views of "optimal", (ie "evil"), as Neuro-science knows that a decision is not a one dimensional process, but involves "cross-inhibition". It's positive, AND negative.

So rephrased I should have said :
Genetic disorders occur, however the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working to the advantage of the collective, not the individual.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but when mutations happen, it is advantageous, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works to advantage the collective. If the collective is seen as the unit to be maximized, then things work to that unit's advantage.
Evolution promotes and enhances long term survival optimization of the collective.
No, no, and no. Not the group, not the collective, not the individual - it's the gene. Genes are what are favored or disfavored by selection.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: