Atheists, can you defend your position about avolution against my argument?

Question

I'm not saying evolution is not true. I'm asking you to explain this to me.

We know evolution is not an “intelligent” process. Here’s what we’ve got:

The species X can survive in its environment quite well.----------> The conditions change and become unfavorable --------->Two things might occur. Which one is more liekly to ocur and why?

1. A genetic mutation occurs by chance and helps one of the offspring survive; it grows up in all those unfavorable conditions, gives birth to other children and by chance the then-unnatural trait is passed on to the offspring; they survive also and pass it onto their offspring and so on.

2. Before a positive mutation occurs, all the species become extinct under the unfavorable conditions, because they don’t have time for some sort of miraculous mutation that can be passed on for the next generations. They’ll be long extinct before any positive changes become stable.

Answer 1

First of all, why is this directed at atheists? Plenty of theists believe in evolution as well. Second, scenario 2 happens far more often than scenario 1, which is why so many species have gone extinct on this earth. But over millions and millions of years (that's a long time) scenario 1 does happen every now and then. And that lucky chance mutation at the right time is what drives evolution.

Answer 2

If you really want to talk about evolutionary biology ask a biologist not an atheist. The word atheist just means someone who does not believe in any God - so addressing this question to atheists is like asking random Muslims detailed questions about the agriculture of Pakistan. While you may get lucky and find one who knows the answers to your questions it's still not a well directed question.



Since 98% of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct it seems that both of the possible occurrences (1. & 2.) do in fact happen - and also apparently evolution is much less likely. So what? Mutations occur constantly - they are no more unnatural than the sunshine or infection with influenza that causes them. Even if only 2% of the species were lucky enough to have a mutation that helped them to survive - that doesn't mean that it did not.



Learn about the ways that mitochondrial DNA is studied in genetics and you will find out that there are very clearly cases where the gene pool was reduced by exactly the sorts of events you have described.



The atheist "position" is simply - "I don't believe there is a God". There is nothing to "defend". It is not a game. It is not a debate. I am simply not convinced to believe your God is real.

Answer 3

The second scenario is more likely, and historically, it shows that this is the case. There are been no less than 5 major extinction events in the past 450 million years, leading to the destruction of at least 30% of marine animal generas.



So, the probability of one particular species gaining the beneficial mutation is very low. However, the probability of -any- species gaining a beneficial mutation before extinction is much higher.



Consider this analogy. You have a ten 100-sided dice (yes, they exist). Let's give, for the sake of argument, a 2% chance of a beneficial mutation arising. This is an attempt to balance the idea that beneficial mutations are rare (most have no effect on an organism's fitness) with the fact that even in mass extinction circumstances, the environment doesn't change too drastically (remember, bacteria has survived every mass extinction event).

So, the chance of a particular 100-sided die in the ten rolling a 1 or a 2 is 2%.

However, the chance of any of the ten 100-sided dice rolling a 1 or a 2 is 18.3%, an increase in chance by almost 10 fold. [This is calculated by doing 100% minus the chance of no beneficial mutation showing up over 10 dice (49/50)^10]



As you can see, even in a very limited environment, the chance becomes high very quickly. A thing to remember is that the biodiversity on this planet is vast. Low probability + high population value = rare events happen all the time.



Be careful of this in the future.

Answer 4

3. Since a change in #1 takes a long time, some of the species develop natural resistances to whatever the unfavorable change is. They survive and have offspring who share these traits. Those who don't, die. That is natural selection in a nutshell. THAT is 90% responsible for evolution. Genetic mutation, at least the positives ones, are the ones that have helped us make the big jumps (water to air, brain pan size, etc.)



note: I am tired about all this crap about "why are you asking atheists about this". If you don't know, don't answer (or come up with something original). If you DO know, why miss this opportunity to possibly waken one of these confused individuals? There is way too much negativity in here these days



note #2: you have been debunked several times. I guess you technically haven't been since you obviously didn't read any responses

Answer 5

That question is better suited for the biology section but from my own limited knowledge in the area I'd say it is simply a situational case. Both happened fairly regularly when environments changed so it boils down to a variety of variables and I don't think either is more probable than the other without having more details about it.



Also, what the heck do you mean by the "then-unnatural trait"? How is a trait unnatural if it is formed by perfectly natural forces? You seem to get the basic ideas but your constant use of the word "chance" (though you are referencing genetic mutation so perhaps you do understand it) and the way you describe number 1) seems like you could possibly use some more information on the topic.

Or maybe I've just read too many creationist posts and am reading too much into your wording.



Edit: Nevermind, I just wasted my time based on your own edit of the OP. You don't care what anyone says you think that you're right and that's all that seems to matter to you. Enjoy living in ignorance.

"If you can't admit when you're wrong, you'll never know when you're right."

Answer 6

You're misunderstand. The mutation is something that already exist in a specie. So for instance, only 1% of an animal has a mutation. It's not a mutation that kills the animal like some genetic mutations do, but only 1% of the animals have it. Now the environment changes, and the mutation the animal has is beneficial. So, they are the 1% who it is favoring and are more likely to survive now. So then who breeds. The 1% with the genetic mutation. So now they are the majority and not the minority.



And yes, sometimes the second happens and that is how we arrived at the animals we have now. They were the ones who were not killed off.

Answer 7

99% of animals have become extinct so that really answers your question. However, quite often a genetic mutation which never was beneficial becomes so when an environment changes and then these are the animals which survive and re-populate. When we stood up and our brains grew we could have become extinct because giving birth became very difficult - however some of us had a mutation where plates in our head could squeeze in and overlap - now we all have.

Answer 8

How does it debunk evolution? It is not really an argument since you have accurately described how evolution works (with the exception of calling a mutation an “unnatural trait” and overlooking the obvious scenarios of migration and genetic diversity). With all due respect, I think the only thing you have managed to expose is your lack of understanding of evolution.

Answer 9

Couple of things a change is made in dna that gives that offspring an advantage to survive and it is passed on, it is not unnatural.

Second part of the reason why 99% of the animals that have ever been on the planet are no longer on the planet.



You have debunked nothing.

Answer 10

Both are possible.



1. If a trait is acquired through normal mutation then it's not "unnatural."



2. The Permian Extinction is a good example of this.



Evolution is for grownups. You wouldn't understand.

Answer 11

Atheists have nothing to say about evolution. When will morons understand that?



Now: as a critically thinking woman, let me address your question:



Scenario 1 is incorrect because, once one has a mutation, it is not "an unnatural trait".

Scenario 2 is incorrect because extinction is not required for evolution.



Now that you have made your 'argument', I would like to see the advanced degrees you hold in biology, chemistry, paleontology. I would like to see the other works you have written and have submitted for peer-review.





Additional Details

Here is you: "My 'argument' is that rocks are actually made of marshmallows! Can you debunk that?"



The rational world "Yes we can, and here is how".



You: "Ha! my argument seems to debunk hard rocks! No Atheist is able to defend his position."

Answer 12

Either one can happen. Many species have gone extinct and many have adapted to a changed environment. What is there to explain?

Answer 13

Cant you understand this?

Evolution is not a Belief, and not necessary an atheist area

Evolution is an Science and it belong to Science Biology questions/section

Answer 14

Evolution has been proven time and time again. You either believe in scientific facts, or ideals that a wizard in the sky made people from nothing.

Answer 15

When attempting to explain evolution and in doubt just use the following sentence:



"Its through change that takes millions and millions of years that we're able to explain evolution"

Answer 16

Organisms adapt to their environment, and if they can't adapt, they die out. Obviously, it will depend on the specific organism and its conditions.



Is that really such a difficult, esoteric concept?



By the way, you haven't made any argument against evolution - you're just voicing your own confusion.

Answer 17

Species are evolving before our eyes.

I'm glad you made a spelling mistake ... the less evolved blond female usually takes that rap but I am happy for you to walk in front of me.

Answer 18

Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn't that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?



The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. It doesn't take time for God to create but time actually is part of the creation. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam's offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam's offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Because the Giant were not able to breed with the smaller people they became more and more inbreed which produces mental and physical problems. Since not all were physical giants though but some were mental and spiritual giants yet of a small size and could breed in a bigger gene pull their traits survived. Adam's genes remain on this planet but only mentally and spiritually.

Answer 19

first off,being an atheist means just a disbelief in God so he is not a biologist or scientist.

Ask this from a scientist and I am sure you will be caught bold easily.

Answer 20

Evolution with a "A" is the first thing you need to be concern about

Answer 21

Yes I can, but why do I need to defend my position on something that has nothing to do with religion, spirituality, or atheists?

Answer 22

My disbelief isn't based on evolution so even if it's disproved it doesn't suggest God.

Answer 23

I don't have anything to say about "avolution"

Answer 24

FORGET IT IRANIAN YOU HAVE NO POINT TO MAKE HERE ATHEISTS ARE LOST THEY DONT

EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR OWN PARENTS BROUGHT THEM IN THIS WORLD!!!!!!!!

JUST SEEK THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ALL YOU NEED TO KINOW WILL BE ADDED!!!!!!!!!OK"