Why does evolution select against atheists?

[hay_you]

fossil genes

DNA is showing that , history ( not used DNA for the host now) can be in this material.
This is what we were talking about before when, asking the question why would a creator create from scratch each time, for a new animal.
So if you compare this to a computer code, many block of code are there to body make parts for example. There also could be code there the the host does not use. What scientists are finding is that there are inhibitors that can block paths or redirect. For example teeth material, would be coded in the DNA, but placement and shape and size etc, would be found else where in the code. This maybe different in different animals, but all the code is there. Scientist have told us that there were parts of the genetic code they really didn't know what it was used for. Maybe they are starting to understand that more. We will have to wait and see what happens with this. Is is very amazing how complicated things are and that scientists can figure out some of this stuff.

 

[spidergoat]

Then that means that evolution knows where it is going what it is going to make and gets ready all the wiring etc. because in 20 steps from know i am going to make a completed leg.

There is no such thing in evolution as an incomplete leg. What happens is that there might be a fish for whom greater dexterity and strength would provide a survival advantage. Variations in this population of fish might have slightly thicker fins, or slighty larger muscles, all functional. This leads to animals that use their limbs less like fish and more like legs. (transitional types are evident). Nothing has to be foreseen, since nothing is foreseen with evolution, there is no planning, no intelligence, only variations with variable survival advantages.

And then does this with no errors. This is creation. Planning and design. 'Evolution ' just makes some mutation any place and maybe this mutation is passed on, and it makes a bit of bone some place. It does know anything about muscles or blood or veins etc. So there would be millions of these errors in 'evolution'. But none are found.

There might be plenty of errors, but as with humans with birth defects, few survive. Mutations do not have to "invent" a new bone, only create some variation in length or other properties in a gene pool. Not knowing what is common for ancient species, it is impossible to even judge whether an individual's variations are atypical.

DNA is not a blueprint for a complete living thing. It is a set of instructions for the building process. A mutation doesn't have to code for a new structure, it can code from something like where to start growing an eye. For instance, the gene to "make an eye here" has been isolated for mice. The same gene can be introduced into a fruit fly, and it will grow extra eyes. But, it doesn't grow mouse eyes, it grows fruit fly eyes.

 

[hay_you]

look into evolutionary developmental biology as I suggested

there you'll find your answers

I mean for the real world.
Take a cell with no DNA and see if it can do anything like 'evolution' says.

 

[earth]

hay you,
Read this and then cite your sources disputing it. In your previous posts you claim there isn’t any evidence for evolution without citing any sources. Cite your sources.

 

[glaucon]

Cite your sources.

How exactly do you cite stupidity?

 

[earth]

How exactly do you cite stupidity?

Good question. :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I mean for the real world.
Take a cell with no DNA and see if it can do anything like 'evolution' says.

Evolution depends on a mechanism of heredity.

 

[thinking]

DNA is not a blueprint for a complete living thing. It is a set of instructions for the building process. A mutation doesn't have to code for a new structure, it can code from something like where to start growing an eye. For instance, the gene to "make an eye here" has been isolated for mice. The same gene can be introduced into a fruit fly, and it will grow extra eyes. But, it doesn't grow mouse eyes, it grows fruit fly eyes.

actually what is found through DNA is that the genes for eyes from Humans , to fruit flies , mice and birds is common to us all

 

[Billy T]

I have read only a few posts, so this may be a repeat:

Obviously evolution does not select against atheists - they were essentially non-existent 10,000 YBP yet quite a few exist now. Back then, most human believed in dozens of gods, some more powerful than others and some with limited domains.

 

[earth]

I have read only a few posts, so this may be a repeat:

Obviously evolution does not select against atheists - they were essentially non-existent 10,000 YBP yet quite a few exist now. Back then, most human believed in dozens of gods, some more powerful than others and some with limited domains.

Kingdoms are going extinct, I think.
All Gods shall cease to exist, just as the Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Viking, Mayan and Aztec Gods did.

 

[hay_you]

Evolution depends on a mechanism of heredity.

Finally a good answer. That why I keep saying that without the DNA.
It's not just the DNA that has to get into the cell it is also, it's not just the material but the heredity. the problem is that DNA keeps things stable. Even if it mutates, it will try to come back to normal with the next generations. Like in the fruit fly experiments.

 

[hay_you]

There is no such thing in evolution as an incomplete leg. What happens is that there might be a fish for whom greater dexterity and strength would provide a survival advantage. Variations in this population of fish might have slightly thicker fins, or slighty larger muscles, all functional. This leads to animals that use their limbs less like fish and more like legs. (transitional types are evident). Nothing has to be foreseen, since nothing is foreseen with evolution, there is no planning, no intelligence, only variations with variable survival advantages.


“
And then does this with no errors. This is creation. Planning and design. 'Evolution ' just makes some mutation any place and maybe this mutation is passed on, and it makes a bit of bone some place. It does know anything about muscles or blood or veins etc. So there would be millions of these errors in 'evolution'. But none are found.
”
There might be plenty of errors, but as with humans with birth defects, few survive. Mutations do not have to "invent" a new bone, only create some variation in length or other properties in a gene pool. Not knowing what is common for ancient species, it is impossible to even judge whether an individual's variations are atypical.

DNA is not a blueprint for a complete living thing. It is a set of instructions for the building process. A mutation doesn't have to code for a new structure, it can code from something like where to start growing an eye. For instance, the gene to "make an eye here" has been isolated for mice. The same gene can be introduced into a fruit fly, and it will grow extra eyes. But, it doesn't grow mouse eyes, it grows fruit fly eyes.

This takes intelligence to do . And all the code necessary is in the animal. Like computer code you can tell the DNA and the genes what to do. You can bring up the same code twice in computers why not with DNA. It has to tell it how many eyes it wants. This type of experiment is artificial for 'evolution', because it was supposed to happen on it's own. Scientists playing with it is creation.

 

[spidergoat]

Except if conditions support the new form better. The state of science is way ahead of you.

 

[thinking]

Finally a good answer. That why I keep saying that without the DNA.

without DNA hmmm....

It's not just the DNA that has to get into the cell

the DNA is already in the cell

its what makes the cell function in the first place

it is also it's not just the material but the heredity. the problem is that DNA keeps things stable. Even if it mutates, it will try to come back to normal with the next generations. Like in the fruit fly experiments.

not true

DNA adapts to enviromental conditions

 

[earth]

I mean for the real world.
Take a cell with no DNA and see if it can do anything like 'evolution' says.

All living organisms have DNA. If you "think not" cite your source.

The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules.

Mitosis = heredity

 

[spidergoat]

This takes intelligence to do . And all the code necessary is in the animal. Like computer code you can tell the DNA and the genes what to do. You can bring up the same code twice in computers why not with DNA. It has to tell it how many eyes it wants. This type of experiment is artificial for 'evolution', because it was supposed to happen on it's own. Scientists playing with it is creation.

We used to think God did it, now we know DNA is just a physical mechanism shaped by time and the conditions in which it found itself. If conditions favored 7 bones instead of 5 on the first lobed-finned fishes, then humans would now have 14 fingers instead of 10.

 

[Billy T]

We used to think God did it, now we know DNA is just a physical mechanism shaped by time and the conditions in which it found itself. If conditions favored 7 bones instead of 5 on the first lobed-finned fishes, then humans would now have 14 fingers instead of 10.

IMHO, our five fingers (instead of six) is a strong argument against an intelligent creator. The factor of 12 are,1,2,3,4,6, but 1 is not very useful, so lets say four useful factors. In contrast 10 has only one useful factor (5).

If we had 12 fingers, we would no doubt have a base 12 number system and it would be four times easier to do divisions etc. Base 10 is a terrible number system.
If we are "God designed," he must be really stupid.

I rarely bring this point up as the typical creationist is not well enough educated to understand it.

 

[Adstar]

It would seem that atheistic societies are self limiting, they shrink, do not replace their populations, then are overwhelmed by theistic societies.

What makes atheistic societies self limiting?

They have been given over to sexual immorality and social disintegration.

The rise of sexual immorality means more homosexuals, lesbians and paedophiles. these people are not good at having babies.

Social disintegration leads to the destruction of families. And the disintegration of families produces more emotionally dysfunctional people who cannot form lasting relationships and therefore they have less success with raising children.

The typical western society is a barren society. That’s why western countries in particular western European countries have been importing people from the middle east and north africa over the past 40 years. That’s why muslims are a rapidly growing part of their populations. And that is why you are correct.

The rabid feminist, family hating, motherhood denigrating, man hating, Barren culture of the west cannot renew itself because they are too busy hating. They have lost the knowledge of how to love. They have lost the ability to give love because they do not have love in their hearts.

The first and most basic function a culture must do to survive is replace it's members. The modern feminist culture of the west cannot even do this basic foundational function.

So yeah they import muslims to fill the gap and those muslims who have not been twisted themselves by the toxic hatred of western culture will have far more children then the barren dysfunctional families of their European neighbours.

The rise of islam in western Europe is both rapid and spectacular. And many of these European born muslims yearn to embrace their culture and the religion of islam in it's most fervent form. What is happening now in Europe is similar to what happened when the spanish went to South America. Only this time the tables are turned.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Enterprise-D]

It would seem that atheistic societies are self limiting, they shrink, do not replace their populations, then are overwhelmed by theistic societies.

What makes atheistic societies self limiting?

I had to laugh at this...Your topic gives the clear impression that you accept evolution as a working model.

Further, your extrapolation makes many assumptions... eg. that atheists seek to organize for conquest, that atheism is shrinking rather than growing (an oversight that really says volumes for your observation of world trends), and that theists can even run a society as opposed to "perpetuate" a status quo.

I'm actually surprised that this obvious baited question has generated 41 pages of responses.

 

[hay_you]

without DNA hmmm....


“
It's not just the DNA that has to get into the cell
”
the DNA is already in the cell

its what makes the cell function in the first place

Science has to show that this cell had instructions in the DNA the first time it formed. This really why the start to life and 'evolution' are not separate things. So a cell needs all of it's parts to live, but it can't evolve these if it is not alive.