changes in modern man

omg you're so right! what was i thinking?!?!i should go to confession right now!

WRONG again. The weak and the strong ALWAYS co-exist in every single species. They always have and always will. So that's another false claim from evolutionists. So try again. As a matter of fact,people of ancient times were far more intelligent than people of today becausw we rely on previous minds for all of our info today whereas they didn't have centuries of previous information to use for their calculations, understanding of mathematics and so forth. They figured it out themselves. The bible even describes the evaporation of water that scientists of the 20th century think they've cleverly figured out themselves. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Better terms would be "less fit" and "better fit" since the characteristics that determine fitness may not correspond to our usual notions of "strength".But be that as it may, you are correct here, but that is an important ingredient for evolution.Any population does have less fit and better fit individuals. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any evolution. Evolution needs the existence of individuals that vary in fitness.But, simply by common sense, the less fit individuals will have fewer offspring than the better fit individuals. I mean, even creationists before Darwin understood that natural selection exists. Less fit individuals will not have as many offspring as better fit individuals -- heck, that is the definition of "fitness"!So the next generation will have fewer individuals of the less fit type and more individuals of the better fit type. But of course, there will be new variations -- genetic mutations if you will -- which will produce slightly new types of individuals (although not necessarily identical to types in the previous generation), and some of these new variations will make the individuals even better fit, and some will make them less fit, and so, again the population will have better fit individuals and less fit individuals.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

First, one has to define "fit". In fact, it is a well-known fact that Darwin's opinions had a deep affect on the Nazi's in the mid-century by trying to define which human race is fitter than another. And we all know what that led to.It is also untrue that people considered "less fit" than others can't have more children than those who are considered "fit". We still have deformed babies, even from couples considered "fit." In fact, one of Einsteins children was considered mentally retarded.So no, "fit" parents (whatever that means) DO NOT NECESSARILY BREED FIT OFFPSRING. Their offspring are just as capable of being born with defects and subject to disease and early death as anyone else's are.So even though your response was considerate and respectful, it's still incorrect. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

What is it that creationists have trouble sticking to a topic? No wonder you are all so abysmal at science -- your attention span is too short to actually learn anything in any depth.If you want to talk about Nazis, then bring it up in the appropriate threads. It doesn't have any bearing on whether the theory of evolution is the correct description of the history of life on earth.- This is false. This is the definition of "fitness". If individuals sharing a certain set of characteristics don't have more offspring than others, then, by definition, they weren't better fit.- If the deformities were not inherited from the parents, then this is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is determined by inherited characteristics.- Then I guess that "Einsteinness" isn't hereditary, and so is irrelevant to evolution.- Sure they do, by definition. An individual is better fit if it produces more offspring than other individuals and if this is due to inherited characteristics. If an individual does not produce any viable offspring, then by definition it wasn't better fit to begin with. The individual will produce more offspring, and many of these offspring will share the inherited characterists, and so these characteristics will be more prevalent in the next generation.Of course, mutations and environmentally induced "deformities" will occur. But these will be relatively rare, so that statistically, on average, better fit individuals will leave more offspring that will have the better fitness characteristics.And the new "deformities" are important -- some of these "deformities" will actually be advantages to the individual, and so will supply the raw material on which evolution works.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

My analogy of the nazi's was showing precisely what happens when people try to play God and judge who's fit and who isn't. You are trying to do the same thing and are failing abysmally.By your definition of fit, you are claiming that only those who have many children are fit. That means that the Bedouins in the Middle east and the people in areas of the world who do nothing but stay at home and have sex with each other are more fit than anyone else in the world. That argument is not only LUDICROUS AND JUDGMENTAL, but unbelievably ignorant as well. So until anyone here is interested in being objective and rational, then further conversation about this won't be productive.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Wow, another adherent to "How to win any argument" school of rhetoric. Straight for the last ruleCompare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."As far as Einstein's children, Albert himself was believed retarded for a long time due to his very late start in verbal communication. What does that prove? What is the relevance to the topic other than the latest of strawmen?-xEdited by EighteenDelta, : clean up

---

Idiots speak louder than words(yes its supposed to be ironical... twice)

You miss a very important point. Chiroptera did not decide who is fit. Actually, no one does. Fit and not fit can only be determined by looking backwards; those things that survived long enough to reproduce were fit. Those that did not were not fit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that's incorrect. Whether one looks backwards, forwards or to current situations HE IS STILL MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHO'S FIT AND WHO ISN'T. One first needs to udnerstand that he needs CRITERIA on which to judge who is fit and who isn't. And by Chiroptera's statements, he judged that people who have more children than others to be fitter than others. THAT'S PLAYING GOD JUST LIKE THE NAZI'S DID, which is not only LUDICROUS AND JUDGMENTAL, but extremely ignorant as well. By your reasonin, then if a fit parent has 10 children and 3 of them die in a car accident, then the parent was unfit to begin with. So arguments made on false and ludicrous claims such as yours and his, aren't even worth responding to. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Yeah, that's the definition of being fit. Care to explain why?

Aren't worth responding to or you aren't capable of responding to? I think you have pretty clearly demonstrated which or these two options is the more likely.-x

---

Idiots speak louder than words(yes its supposed to be ironical... twice)

Actually, unless you can show why it is ludicrous and judgmental, you got nothing.Fit and non-fit only relate to a population continuing. You are free of course to believe anything you want, but when discussing evolution, the only criteria that counts is whether or not the population passes through the filter of Natural Selection. Those populations that pass through the filter continue to exist. Those that do not become extinct.It really is that simple.AbE to address your added comment: Not that is not at all what we are saying.The parent was fit because he or she reproduced. The children however did not pass through the filter of Natural Selection.BUT...evolution does not deal with individuals but with populations so your example is irrelevant anyway.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, I can respond to them alright and I have. By your reasoning, then a fit parent who had 10 children and 3 of them die in a car accident, that makes the parent unfit. One can't have a rational conversation with someone who makes illogical statements such as that one.But I know one thing: the Nazis agreed with that type of reasoning. They had a program called Lebensborn where they encouraged even SS officials to breed with ANY Aryan woman, married or single, because they too thought that breeding as many children as they could perpetuated a superior race. And that delusional thinking came from darwin himself. So the theory of evolution is not only a lie but it brreeds arrogance that cannot be reasoned with, any more than one can reason with the Nazi's. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Nope. You need to read the definition of fit. <--click

So you're saying that couples who opt not to have children are less fit than those who do nothing but have sex all day and breed children? You couldn't be further from the truth. Again, not only is that judgmental but your criteria for judging fitness is LUST AND LAZINESS. One cannot carry on a rational conversation with people who make such false, judgmental, and ludicrous claims such as these. I therefore will not stoop to this level of conversation with anyone because they're not capable of thinking rationally.