[__ Science __ ] Why Do We Need To Survive

[Josef]

Hey All
Evolutionists are easy to debate.
Their whole premise is incorrect because it not logical.
Evolution proclaims "survival of the fittest" meaning that the weaker organism goes extinct while the stronger survives.
Evolution concentrates on the organism.
But they miss, or fail to explain, the "survival" part of the phrase.
The world can accommodate both weak and strong for a time.
Then some factor in the Earth's existence causes the weaker organism to go extinct.
That is not evolution.
That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.
The earth is becoming less and less sustainable as time and extinct species show.
That is the observable and repeated circumstances that can be seen over time.

The world right now is worried about bees going extinct.
Without bees, many food plants would not get pollinated.
That will cause further extinction as animals, and even humans, will lose valuable food resources.
Plants that are male and female, which have no way to self-pollinate, will not propagate.
And so on and so on, until the last species.

We are not evolving.
We are surviving.
We will not survive forever.

Right now it is a slow process.
As more and more species go extinct, the world becomes less and less sustainable.
That process will likely become faster.
The earth is not evolving.
The earth is dying.

To argue evolution is to argue extinction.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That is not that far off from what Peter wrote.

John agrees.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

This is why I can agree with Darwin.
He was on the right path.
But he focused on the living, and equated that to being better because of survivability.
Maybe he was right in his focus.
However, he did not concentrate on why was there a need for survival.

That's the question to ask evolutionists.

Why is there a need to survive?
Because the extinction process continues.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Milk-Drops]

Your premises are built off misunderstanding in evolutionary biology.

Survival of the fittest is not weak vs strong. Instead it is about during the march of time organisms most adapted to their environment will live to propagate their lineage.

You mentioned bees and how there is a concern of them dieing out. That is because the plants and bees developed alongside each other and became dependant. If bees go extinct it would trigger an extinction event. However this isn't the first nor will it be the last. What it means is that niches will open up and other organisms will take on those niches, just as it has happened before.


For humanity, we want to preserve bees because it preserves our status quo.

 

[Josef]

Your premises are built off misunderstanding in evolutionary biology.

Survival of the fittest is not weak vs strong. Instead it is about during the march of time organisms most adapted to their environment will live to propagate their lineage.

You mentioned bees and how there is a concern of them dieing out. That is because the plants and bees developed alongside each other and became dependant. If bees go extinct it would trigger an extinction event. However this isn't the first nor will it be the last. What it means is that niches will open up and other organisms will take on those niches, just as it has happened before.


For humanity, we want to preserve bees because it preserves our status quo.

Hey All,
Milk-Drops, why is one species more adaptable?
And if both species have to adapt to the changing environment, and only one can, the one species able to adapt is considered superior, or stronger.
But let's go with adaptable.
This still does not address the reason the environment changed.
Why the need for adaptation?
Because the environment is no longer sustainable for both species.
We see species lost.
We do not see new species replacements.

I never said extinction of bees would not be the first or last. But it stands to reason that bee extinction will start a cascading extinction of plant and animal.

We still have to address the downward spiral of organisms on the planet. We see only extinction. Where are the new species?

Based on observable and repeated events, evolution is just the second law of thermodynamics in action.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[follower]

Evolutionists are easy to debate.

If they said they follow an easter bunny, would you bother debating with them?

I think God's Word says it is folly to debate with them, actually forbidden?

Or at least not a good idea - nothing good results from even talking with them in person or in a forum. They just continue in great error(s), and make doodoo awkward to step around.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hey All,
Milk-Drops, why is one species more adaptable?

This depends on the environment and total ecology. Generally organisms as a whole will fill niches in their environment and there will be a balance that will support a status quo. Now if something changes in the environment such as an invading species, sudden death of a species, a new mutation that has spread through a species that shakes up the status quo. Etc. This will trigger speciation.

And if both species have to adapt to the changing environment, and only one can, the one species able to adapt is considered superior, or stronger.
But let's go with adaptable.

Adaptable is better because a species could phase out in one biome and be more applicable in another.

This still does not address the reason the environment changed.

That is because that is ecology and not Evolutionary biology.

Why the need for adaptation?

Adaptation is a great asset in that the environment will change. There are organisms that are hyper adapted to their niche like Pandas and koalas, but due to this hyper adaptation in their diets the organisms are in danger if bamboo or Ucalyptus is in danger.

Because the environment is no longer sustainable for both species.
We see species lost.
We do not see new species replacements.

Not instantaneously, it will take time. For example when the large dinosaurs died out due to resource needs carnivor and herbivor mamals filled In to the niches. It wasn't over night, but a gradual change. Extinction events lead to a great dieing off, then a rebuild.

I never said extinction of bees would not be the first or last. But it stands to reason that bee extinction will start a cascading extinction of plant and animal.

Correct, then once there is a settling, species left will start to fill in the holes left over.

We still have to address the downward spiral of organisms on the planet. We see only extinction. Where are the new species?

Species come into being when a niche opens up or a current species figures out how ro exploit a niche. Until the change in the ecosystem happens, we won't see organisms fill8ng in the rolls.

Based on observable and repeated events, evolution is just the second law of thermodynamics in action.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

The second law of Thermo dynamics applies, but the theory of evolution is specificly about speciation. As Ling as the sun keeps pumping, there is plenty of energy to use for organisms to thrive.

 

[Barbarian]

Hey All
Evolutionists are easy to debate.
Their whole premise is incorrect because it not logical.

You seem unaware of what the actual premise is. Which is typical of YE creationists. You're beating a strawman of your own making.

Evolution proclaims "survival of the fittest" meaning that the weaker organism goes extinct while the stronger survives.

Actually, you're thinking of natural selection. That's an agency of evolution, but it's not evolution. Your misunderstandings make you easy work for anyone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Evolution concentrates on the organism.

No. It's about populations. You really don't know anything about this, do you?

But they miss, or fail to explain, the "survival" part of the phrase.
The world can accommodate both weak and strong for a time.

Fitness is not about "weak"and "strong."

Then some factor in the Earth's existence causes the weaker organism to go extinct.
That is not evolution.

That is natural selection, which causes evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So when particular alleles become more or less frequent in the population, evolution has occurred.

That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.
The earth is becoming less and less sustainable as time and extinct species show.

No. Because the Earth is an open system, that does not happen.

The world right now is worried about bees going extinct.
Without bees, many food plants would not get pollinated.
That will cause further extinction as animals, and even humans, will lose valuable food resources.
Plants that are male and female, which have no way to self-pollinate, will not propagate.
And so on and so on, until the last species.

Honeybee populations are hitting record numbers. Weren’t they dying off before? ​

Honeybee populations are soaring. Weren't they dying off before? - Marketplace

Vox editorial director Bryan Walsh explains about how we got it wrong and what the reality is for bees today.

www.marketplace.org

Maybe you should go and read up about this stuff before you come here and tell us about it.

We are not evolving.

That's wrong, too. Happens all around us. Would you like to learn about some examples?

The earth is dying.

Not noticeably. But I'd be willing to look at your data. Show us your numbers.

Darwin merely noted that populations showed descent with modifiction, and that natural selection tends to make populations more fit.

This is why I can agree with Darwin.
He was on the right path.

But he focused on the living, and equated that to being better because of survivability.
Maybe he was right in his focus.
However, he did not concentrate on why was there a need for survival.

No, that's wrong. In fact, his theory actually was about surviving long enough to leave viable offspring. That's why survival is important. If you don't have any kids, your children won't either.

That's the question to ask evolutionists.

Why is there a need to survive?

See above. Seriously though, learn about some of this, so it's easier for you to discuss it.