Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Amsel :D:

I'm being autistic, so I just say Darwinism instead of whatever term people prefer, when refering to the secular beliefs on the origin of life.

Compare the numbers of good and bad mutations in modern society.

The lack of genetic diversity (from the first few creatures) would strangle the entirety of life. We'd have to rely on mutations - which are almost always more harmful than good - in order to develop the diverse gene pool we have today.

As for the development of sexes, I'm referencing that many people think that the sexes were once neuter, and then sort of evolved into different being, and we have many vestigial organs to suggest such. The problem with this is that there is no benefit in terms of natural selection for the development of gender. Self-replicating being would have a much better chance at survival than ones with split sex.

The last point is more social than an actual critique of the theory. It annoys me that the argument is framed so that you can't believe in the self-evident theory of natural selection, without also believing some of the more silly stuff.

If you can stand my typos from being half-awake be my guest and we can keep discussing this. I need more experience talking about this from a purely secular point of view, without bringing up my ancient aliens tier nonsense.

Get some sleep. You're contradicting yourself in your own argument.

Originally posted by Eiballs:

Pyrofish did nothing wrong.

Originally posted by UnofficialAether:

Shit

Originally posted by A Truly Jovial PyromaniacPisces:

Annoying twat.