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.

If anti-evolution Christians reject evolutionary incentives to perpetuate their genes as efficiently as....?

.....possible, why do they have the same preferences for symmetrical faces and fertility-maximized features as everyone else?

If evolutionary processes (such as Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE) are bogus, why do anti-evolution Christians of both genders tend to choose mating partners who are their physical and sexual (and most fertile, feminine/masculine) equals or greater---just like everyone else?

If evolutionary forces were not at work, wouldn't we see lots of marriages of vastly contrasted age, attractiveness, fertility, and general appeal because non-fertility factors would be more important? (I don't doubt that one can always find anecdotal exceptions. But does anyone doubt the general trends?)

Do not evolutionary factors dictate much of our mating behavior, whether we affirm the theory of evolution or not?

Update:

===========================================

How does homosexuality fit into your scheme?

You turned off email to your account, so I doubt the sincerity of your question. You don't want to hear any answers.

But I could also ask "How do birth defects and cancer among young children fit into YOUR scheme."

You see, I'm a Bible-believing Christian who is annoyed that you pretend that the Bible and evolutionary processes are in conflict.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Charles Darwin miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution.

    God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God.

    Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species."

    W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

    Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.

    Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given."

    Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York.

    Have faith dear friends in God, not theories.

    Genesis 1:1

    Isaiah 45:18

    Colossians 1:16

    Hebrews 11:1-6

    Genesis 2:1-3

    Exodus 20:8-11

    Psalm 14:1

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    In every case, the creationist who rejects evolution will merely argue that "God did it"; God just so happened to give us such sexual preferences.

    @ Ann The point that I am trying to make is that attributing everything to a will of a creator really explains nothing, because we have no way of knowing or predicting what a creator's will is. Invoking a creator may be useful as an ultimate explanation for things, but it's not useful when trying to explain things like sexuality. A much deeper understanding of things like sexuality is given by natural selection and evolutionary psychology.

  • 9 years ago

    Evolution happens whether you believe in it or not.

    My larger concerns lie with things like the fraternal birth order effect and the crazy Christian groups that believe in having huge families. The same people who hate gays the most indulge in the only breeding schema shown to increase the likelihood of having gay sons. WTF?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    How does homosexuality fit into your scheme?

    @Smash it up - and in every case the evolutionist will argue "time did it"

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.