Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Neanderthaland]

Because that never happens. Evolution does not select for any change that isn't immediately useful.

Don't forget neutral, things that are neither deleterious nor beneficial are not weeded out.

I specifically said "select for." I do try to be careful about these things.

[Neutraligon]

Don't forget neutral, things that are neither deleterious nor beneficial are not weeded out.

I specifically said "select for." I do try to be careful about these things.

Ah I misread it.

[Marxist Germany]

Yes.

[Neanderthaland]

Because that never happens. Evolution does not select for any change that isn't immediately useful.

EXACTLY. Now stop fantasizing about macro-evolution, because it is beyond the span of immediate usefulness.

No it isn't. Evolution is capable of covering vast distances using tiny steps.

[Temple State]

EXACTLY. Now stop fantasizing about macro-evolution, because it is beyond the span of immediate usefulness.

No it isn't. Evolution is capable of covering vast distances using tiny steps.

That is just a complete oxymoron.

The only thing that takes quantum leaps are mental, cultural and technological revolutions.

To this day, no proof of macro-evolution has yet been uncovered. Only these slight variations of lineages that remain firmly within their own kind.

[Neutraligon]

No it isn't. Evolution is capable of covering vast distances using tiny steps.

That is just a complete oxymoron.

The only thing that takes quantum leaps are mental, cultural and technological revolutions.

To this day, no proof of macro-evolution has yet been uncovered. Only these slight variations of lineages that remain firmly within their own kind.

Still waiting for you to define kind.
So, you agree that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor I assume?

[Godular]

Microevolution is ALL evolution. You’re acting as if one day an egg cracked open and out popped a rabbit. You didn’t pay a lick of attention to that image, did you? You very apparently whiffed on the point of it.

Explain to me how the incremental changes in the lineage to developing new limbs and more advanced functions than the tweaking of a protein here or there, can possibly happen when such a mutant lineage would die out from wasting energy on a useless incomplete function for untold generation before it is ready? It would not give them any advantage until it is complete, so according to "survival of the fittest" it would not survive. Hence, no macro-evolution. Just kinds changing colors and sizes basically.

The foundation of your concern is flawed. You keep speaking of wasted energy, but the simple fact is that when a new trait starts to propagate it is simply more efficient than the standard AT THE TIME. Early Eukaryotes didn’t have mitochondria at first, but by simple happenstance one eukaryotic cell just happened to nom a precursor to mitochondria and discovered it was more effective to let it stick around and churn out ATP than to digest it outright. A similar situation could have occurred billions of trillions of times before with no such thing occurring, but in that one instance the cell was suddenly much more effective at survival than its contemporaries.

It was a tiny change that was more effective at the time. It just worked out. It happens millions of times every day, and many times it comes to nothing, but sometimes a new trait (or even an old one getting repurposed) strikes gold.

[Neanderthaland]

No it isn't. Evolution is capable of covering vast distances using tiny steps.

That is just a complete oxymoron.

No it isn't. If you can walk ten feet, you can walk a mile.

The only thing that takes quantum leaps are mental, cultural and technological revolutions.

Okay? That was a completely unrelated and pointless thing to say.

To this day, no proof of macro-evolution has yet been uncovered. Only this slight variations of lineages that remain firmly within their own kind.

We've literally tracked the entire linage of dogs. As I mentioned earlier. They're descended from a weasel-like creatures called miacis. We have every part of this ancestry mapped out, with no missing links.

So is this a dog?

[Region of Dwipantara]

Just because you don’t understand the process does not mean the process is impossible to occur naturally.

Possible is one thing. Probable is another. The probability is infinitesimally small. Over any time span. Especially when taking into account that the mutant lineage would have to be able to preserve itself while suffering from wasting energy on incomplete functions.

On the misconception of counting chances in natural selection -> https://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454
On the evolution of the eye (which also evolved independently more than 50 times) -> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008757 ... nd%20years.
Also, things like genetic drifts happens. From selection through environment to predatory pressure, these things resulted in specieses such as Ichtyosaur, shark, and dolphin evolving and ending up in a similar shape – a shape really suited for their niche. Coincidence? I don't think so. The fossil records are pretty good at detailing their development. What the record doesn't tell us however is that a shrimp-averse omnipresent grandpa called Yahweh / Allah / FSM / Nyx / Ameno-Sagiri / Yaldabaoth 'created' or 'direct their development' out of boredom.

[Godular]

No it isn't. Evolution is capable of covering vast distances using tiny steps.

That is just a complete oxymoron.

The only thing that takes quantum leaps are mental, cultural and technological revolutions.

To this day, no proof of macro-evolution has yet been uncovered. Only these slight variations of lineages that remain firmly within their own kind.

This is just plain wrong, both for the use of the flawed term ‘macroevolution’ and for the assertion that no such proof exists.

[Temple State]

That is just a complete oxymoron.

The only thing that takes quantum leaps are mental, cultural and technological revolutions.

To this day, no proof of macro-evolution has yet been uncovered. Only these slight variations of lineages that remain firmly within their own kind.

Still waiting for you to define kind.
So, you agree that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor I assume?

Why can't monkeys be a degenerated lineage of humans you mean?

[Neutraligon]

Still waiting for you to define kind.
So, you agree that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor I assume?

Why can't monkeys be a degenerated lineage of humans you mean?

No. degenerate makes no sense when it comes to evolution. Now please answer the question, as well as the question of what classes you took and books you used. You claimed an expertise, demonstrate based on what do you claim that expertise.

[Neanderthaland]

Still waiting for you to define kind.
So, you agree that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor I assume?

Why can't monkeys be a degenerated lineage of humans you mean?

They can't, because they would have had to re-evolve a number of traits that humans have lost. But which other animals have. And that's extremely unlikely.

Also, because nothing is "degenerate" in evolutionary terms. Evolution only cares about survival and reproduction. And if a trait makes you better at surviving and reproducing, no matter what it is, that's a good thing as far as evolution is concerned.

[Temple State]

Explain to me how the incremental changes in the lineage to developing new limbs and more advanced functions than the tweaking of a protein here or there, can possibly happen when such a mutant lineage would die out from wasting energy on a useless incomplete function for untold generation before it is ready? It would not give them any advantage until it is complete, so according to "survival of the fittest" it would not survive. Hence, no macro-evolution. Just kinds changing colors and sizes basically.

The foundation of your concern is flawed. You keep speaking of wasted energy, but the simple fact is that when a new trait starts to propagate it is simply more efficient than the standard AT THE TIME. Early Eukaryotes didn’t have mitochondria at first, but by simple happenstance one eukaryotic cell just happened to nom a precursor to mitochondria and discovered it was more effective to let it stick around and churn out ATP than to digest it outright. A similar situation could have occurred billions of trillions of times before with no such thing occurring, but in that one instance the cell was suddenly much more effective at survival than its contemporaries.

It was a tiny change that was more effective at the time. It just worked out. It happens millions of times every day, and many times it comes to nothing, but sometimes a new trait (or even an old one getting repurposed) strikes gold.

No such fossils with just four and a half limbs, or five and a half. *sigh*

[Neutraligon]

Why can't monkeys be a degenerated lineage of humans you mean?

They can't, because they would have had to re-evolve a number of traits that humans have lost. But which other animals have. And that's extremely unlikely.

Well that and even if somehow something like a gorilla evolved from a human, they would still be human. In modern biology you do not grow out of your ancestor so they would still be humans.

[Neutraligon]

The foundation of your concern is flawed. You keep speaking of wasted energy, but the simple fact is that when a new trait starts to propagate it is simply more efficient than the standard AT THE TIME. Early Eukaryotes didn’t have mitochondria at first, but by simple happenstance one eukaryotic cell just happened to nom a precursor to mitochondria and discovered it was more effective to let it stick around and churn out ATP than to digest it outright. A similar situation could have occurred billions of trillions of times before with no such thing occurring, but in that one instance the cell was suddenly much more effective at survival than its contemporaries.

It was a tiny change that was more effective at the time. It just worked out. It happens millions of times every day, and many times it comes to nothing, but sometimes a new trait (or even an old one getting repurposed) strikes gold.

No such fossils with just four and a half limbs, or five and a half. *sigh*

What is half a limb?

[Disgraces]

It should stay as it is, some schools don't teach religion, and some schools do.

[Temple State]

Furthermore I will add that the only "evolution" or change of organisms that the Bible describes taking place after the original creation, are all facilitated by non-human intelligent entities (see Genesis 6 e.g.). Quantum leaps into "usefulness" takes intelligence once again, it is not blind.

[Neanderthaland]

The foundation of your concern is flawed. You keep speaking of wasted energy, but the simple fact is that when a new trait starts to propagate it is simply more efficient than the standard AT THE TIME. Early Eukaryotes didn’t have mitochondria at first, but by simple happenstance one eukaryotic cell just happened to nom a precursor to mitochondria and discovered it was more effective to let it stick around and churn out ATP than to digest it outright. A similar situation could have occurred billions of trillions of times before with no such thing occurring, but in that one instance the cell was suddenly much more effective at survival than its contemporaries.

It was a tiny change that was more effective at the time. It just worked out. It happens millions of times every day, and many times it comes to nothing, but sometimes a new trait (or even an old one getting repurposed) strikes gold.

No such fossils with just four and a half limbs, or five and a half. *sigh*

The way Hox genes work, you would never evolve half a limb.

You could get six limbs, maybe. A couple of arms growing out of your head. I doubt they'd be very functional, and you'd probably die. But it could happen.

This is kind of pointless though, since everything that evolved with four limbs evolved from ancestors that also had four limbs. All the way back to fish that had four flippers, and a tail. So we haven't really needed to evolve another limb any time in the last few hundred million years.

[Jedi Council]

Furthermore I will add that the only "evolution" or change of organisms that the Bible describes taking place after the original creation, are all facilitated by non-human intelligent entities (see Genesis 6 e.g.). Quantum leaps into "usefulness" takes intelligence once again, it is not blind.

The Bible =/= evidence, especially when discussing science.

[Neanderthaland]

They can't, because they would have had to re-evolve a number of traits that humans have lost. But which other animals have. And that's extremely unlikely.

Well that and even if somehow something like a gorilla evolved from a human, they would still be human. In modern biology you do not grow out of your ancestor so they would still be humans.

As I am fond of saying. Yes.

[Temple State]

They can't, because they would have had to re-evolve a number of traits that humans have lost. But which other animals have. And that's extremely unlikely.

Well that and even if somehow something like a gorilla evolved from a human, they would still be human. In modern biology you do not grow out of your ancestor so they would still be humans.

The taxonomic term 'family' and the biblical term 'kind' is not exactly overlapping perfectly, so I'd say monkeys are not the same kind as us, since we cannot produce bastard offspring even. God forbid that atheists would try that again (like under Stalin).

[Temple State]

Furthermore I will add that the only "evolution" or change of organisms that the Bible describes taking place after the original creation, are all facilitated by non-human intelligent entities (see Genesis 6 e.g.). Quantum leaps into "usefulness" takes intelligence once again, it is not blind.

The Bible =/= evidence, especially when discussing science.

Yes it is.

[Temple State]

No such fossils with just four and a half limbs, or five and a half. *sigh*

The way Hox genes work, you would never evolve half a limb.

You could get six limbs, maybe. A couple of arms growing out of your head. I doubt they'd be very functional, and you'd probably die. But it could happen.

This is kind of pointless though, since everything that evolved with four limbs evolved from ancestors that also had four limbs. All the way back to fish that had four flippers, and a tail. So we haven't really needed to evolve another limb any time in the last few hundred million years.

Explain arthropods and cephalopods.

Are you saying limb evolution is made by spontaneous quantum leaps? That's hilarious.

[Jedi Council]

The Bible =/= evidence, especially when discussing science.

Yes it is.

Care to explain why?