This drivel doesn't even warrant a response. The fact that the OP felt the need to make an alt account to post it proves that even he knows what he is posting is stupid because he doesn't want it seen on his main account.
This drivel doesn't even warrant a response. The fact that the OP felt the need to make an alt account to post it proves that even he knows what he is posting is stupid because he doesn't want it seen on his main account.RandoIph
This is actually a step up from most anti-evolution threads. He at least has the sense to ask if it's a sound theory, instead of of saying that it's JUST a theory.
It's natural selection for god's sake. But it does seem amazing that complex organisms can develop from simple, single celled organisms. There has to be some genetic advantage to being more complex, but sometimes single celled organisms seem to be tougher. Take bacteria.
[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"] Nothing in evolution has been observed as occurring on this earth or anywhere else.JYoungin20years
Yes it has, evolution has been observed multiple times in both labs and in its natural environment.
LOL. Show me the papers proving this. Do you REALLY think that you'd understand them, even if you read them? Just go with the troll thread, and let it go at that... the more you type, the more you come across as someone who moves their lips when they read posts here.
[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"] Nothing in evolution has been observed as occurring on this earth or anywhere else.JYoungin20years
Yes it has, evolution has been observed multiple times in both labs and in its natural environment.
LOL. Show me the papers proving this. Do you REALLY think that you'd understand them, even if you read them? Just go with the troll thread, and let it go at that... the more you type, the more you come across as someone who moves their lips when they read posts here.
Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.
Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.paratheos
Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.paratheos
That is NOT what the definition of the term "evolution" being used by scientists. They are referring to this process, not your "intuitive" definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[QUOTE="paratheos"]Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.JYoungin20years
Evolution isn't occurring. Evolution is any gradual change over time. However, natural selection as described by Charles Darwin is not the key mechanism of evolution.
Actually, we've never found a true missing link that shows humans evolved from apes. Whenever we find one it always gets proven wrong.The-Apostle
The missing link is a myth. It's not missing at all. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the best way we currently have to explain it. Lame talking points like the supposedly missing link are just plain stupid at this point.
Actually, we've never found a true missing link that shows humans evolved from apes. Whenever we find one it always gets proven wrong.The-Apostle
This is based on a fallacious assumption that there is one missing link. In reality, evolution is a process that spans millions of years and is in a constant process of change. It's not that apes are going along, minding their own business, and all of the sudden one day the "missing link" is born, it's that very small genetic mutations occur over a prolonged span of time, eventually leading to something that no longer resembles the ancestor, and we HAVE found many fossils that represent increment periods in the evolutionary process between apes and humans.
[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Actually, we've never found a true missing link that shows humans evolved from apes. Whenever we find one it always gets proven wrong.RandoIph
The missing link is a myth. It's not missing at all. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the best way we currently have to explain it. Lame talking points like the supposedly missing link are just plain stupid at this point. Yeah, but it's right about Apostle's speed... and what else does he have with the new ToU anyway?
[QUOTE="JYoungin20years"][QUOTE="paratheos"]Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.paratheos
Evolution isn't occurring. Evolution is any gradual change over time. However, natural selection as described by Charles Darwin is not the key mechanism of evolution. You're right. There's countless mechanisms of evolution, each with their own problems.
[QUOTE="paratheos"]Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.coolbeans90
That is NOT what the definition of the term "evolution" being used by scientists. They are referring to this process, not your "intuitive" definition: This definition has been intentionally restricted in order to limit its scope to natural selection. The exchange goes as follows: "Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?" "No" "How can you be sure?" "Because the scientific definition of evolution indicates that natural selection is the key mechanism." This reasoning is clearly fallacious.
This definition has been intentionally restricted in order to limit its scope to natural selection. The exchange goes as follows: "Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?" "No" "How can you be sure?" "Because the scientific definition of evolution indicates that natural selection is the key mechanism." This reasoning is clearly fallacious.paratheos
No, the definition has not been restricted for any purpose other than to specifically define the parameters of "evolution" as it pertains to the process of genetic changes. YOU ARE USING A DIFFERENT WORD THAN IS BEING USED BY SCIENTISTS.
The reasoning is more along the lines of "genetic traits which inhibit survival until reproduction within any given environment have a tendency to fail to reproduce and consequently natural selection is the key mechanism in determining which sets of genetic traits survive."
Evolution does NOT address non-biological phenomena. (except in a roundabout way one could argue that intelligence, which causes a species to more capably adapts to their environment and suit their environment to their survival, is an evolutionarily beneficial trait.
Log in to comment