Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Do christians accept artificial selection, and if so why not natural selection?
surely even the most blinkered fundie has to acknowledge the proven act of selectively breeding certain body types of animal to end up with a diverse and often perverse result, such as that with the vast number of man made breeds of dog and also livestock bred to have higher meat yields.
so then to natural selection, where environment and other factors impinge on which members of a species survive to reproduce. for example we can imagine a creature whose chosen food has grown higher and thus only the taller animals can reach it, given enough time, the successive generations will become taller, eventually mutating the species via natural selection...."
how can anybody deny these simple but beautiful facts?
why do you prefer the poverty of faith and ignorance?
7 Answers
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
I have no problem with Darwin's explanation of natural selection. Unfortunately, most evolutionists have no idea what he really said. Natural selection NEVER leads to an increased number of species. It ALWAYS leads to a reduced or equal number of species. It is not an act of creation. It is an act of extinction. Your extrapolation of this destructive process is an example of the unscientific philosophical argument in favor of increasing the number of species through extinction. How you can arrive at creation through destruction is simple, but false. It takes a faith far beyond mine to believe the nonsense that you blindly believe.
- Andy WLv 79 years ago
I accept both, natural and artificial selections.
What I do not accept is that natural or artificial selection can turn one organism into another. These selections only bring out the traits selectively that are already present in the genome of the organisms or species.
No new genes are formed in the process and therefore evolution is absent.
Edit - @People who block.....You have brought out the facts beautifully. What I would like to add is, let the evolutionists prove that natural selection led to the extinction of certain species because they were NOT naturally selected to change into another form. What we have instead is all the organisms from the prokaryotes up surviving right up to the present time. Which species became extinct in the process? And if they became extinct, weren't they better suited for survival than their ancestors?
- Christian SinnerLv 79 years ago
Farmers breed the best stock, horticulturists want the best most profitable, healthy plants, so they breed them that way. Nature has done some inter-specific breeding of it's own. But to say that all life everywhere came to be what they are by breeding is silly, I think.
- Anonymous9 years ago
because they are blissfully ignorant and unwilling to believe anything other than what the Bible says. My family is very religious and they believe the world is 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve hung out with the Dinosaurs... You can't argue with that kind of ignorance.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I think 99% do.
But as an explanation for "everything" like most atheist fundies believe? Nah!!!
- Anonymous9 years ago
Have you heard fundies throw around the terms microevolution and macroevolution yet? That's how.
- 9 years ago
Because it makes their dusty old book sound stupid, aside from the incest, rape, slavery and murder...