Reply With QuoteI too wait for my accounts to evolve into $Billions. Ergo, I reject 'evolution'.Originally Posted by Superman
wtfever. I'm waiting on my motorcycle to evolve into an airplane.
tick tock tick tock
I too wait for my accounts to evolve into $Billions. Ergo, I reject 'evolution'.
The point was what Darwin actually wrote about - natural selection. The process of "natural selection" focuses on the selection part. Artificial changes simply mimic nature and give us a view of natural selection in action.
Moths changing from gray to all-black in London is another example. The black moths blended in better due to the residue left by fires and coal burning, and prospered. The gray moths did not, and became quite rare.
The natural selection theory spawned the theory of evolution, i.e., that species change, develop, and mutate and survive or don't and die off. You are focused on the mutation portion of the equation. If you accept the natural selection portion, then the abundance of species and their incredible variations - some slight, some incredible - make sense.
Finally, our rock formations are littered with millions of plants and animals that have died off, and have been gone for millions of years ... to the point the life turned into rock. The denial of the timeless process of natural selection and its progeny, evolution, is simply not credible.
Because unlike living organisms, it is unable to change its essential nature, and have nature reward or punish such changes to see if it will survive. Living organisms can, and do, change with great regularity, and nature decides if the change is for the good or detriment.
Primordial ooze better change. The oceans change based on how much Ph the atmosphere puts into the ocean, and based on ocean temperature, and based on food sources.
It is a fact that given enough time, any life form will change. Some changes benefit the creatures, some don't. Those that benefit the life form remain and become more dominant. Those changes - called "mutations" in living organisms - then become part of the new and improved life form.
The primordial ooze that develops - "mutates" - into having small growths that catch water movement and allow it to travel to a better feeding ground prevails. The ooze that then "selects" the better travel pattern for its feeding prospers. The ooze which then survives hotter or colder temperatures, or increases the food it can process, survives and becomes the new and improved ooze.
So over the course of millions of years, the ooze now can move, select its feeding location, survive greater temperature variations, and increase the food it can eat. It's the same ooze ... yet it isn't. (I was going to write, "but it's not," and then realized you boogers would point out that I had posited that ooze was the same because "it's snot.")
The 'natural selection' piece can be argued. How else do you explain the races? We all descend from Africans. How do we get the Swedish Bikini team?
Melanin helps the body protect itself from sun exposure and sun burn, including skin cancer. Melanin is much less important for colder environments, like England, Sweden, Ireland. This article explains:
Why do people from different parts of the world have different colored skin? Why do people from the tropics generally have darker skin color than those who live in colder climates? Variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.
Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.
There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ity-skin-color
It's on the internet, so it has to be true.
I believe in micro evolution. Giraffes necks grew so they could feed on leaves in trees. Mosquitos developed resistance to certain pesticides/DDT/etc. In essence, the genetic DNA coding passed down from generation to generation due to the previous generations’ experiences. This is quantifiable and observable. It is based in logic and facts. There is concrete scientific evidence to support.
Macro evolution?
Give me a FN break.
This is the bastard child of L Ron Hubbard and Andy Kauffman.
There is merely speculation, hypothesizing, and a lot of acid trips that even make this a thing.
There is not one solid factual thing that supports this.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
You really need to look up the peppered moth myth. They were nailed to the trees. It was a lie. Like a lot of evolutionary thought.
Also variations within species is not evolution. It's just variations. In order to have molecules to man evolution you need some type of new input not the shuffling around of the same information. I went to school for this and teach science. You can't take small changes within a species and extrapolate it into new creatures. There is no mechanism for that. Evolution is a philosophy it isn't science. Which is why many PhDs are wanting to go back and re-examine it.
BTW the issues with evolution were so bad that they had to change the origins of life to a separate it out from evolution AFTER life. That's where abiogenesis came from. Scientist have even tried to put evolution off on another planet because they realize the impossibility of it happening here. Darwin knew nothing about cellular complexity. He thought cells were simple and that life was easily replicated. Now we know that cells (even the single cellular organisms) are extremely complex and couldn't have formed by random chance. Even in labs it can't be reproduced. The idea that life sprung from soup billions of years ago is simply not credible and lacks scientific understanding of molecular complexity and the environment necessary for such life to form.
this thread is useless without thong pics
Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app
I can't figure out - Troglodyte
It's unfortunate but when you mix those issues into a bucket, you're going to get incidents like this. -- Deljzc on French terrorist murders
Oooz. fish, primates, what?
It still is occuring
fish are leaving the water on to walk on land today, just like 200 million years ago
evolution never stops
OR other teams for that matter.
yeah, stick with Sweden
A better view of the famous Swedish bikini team.
I'll be honest, I do not know enough about this topic to comment intelligently but I also believe that creation and Darwinism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course for people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible as truth that's impossible.
I don't see 'natural selection' as necessarily in conflict with Gen 1:25 'God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.'. Again, how else do you explain race or various forms of species (eg - Arctic fox v red fox, polar bear v Teddy bear, etc)? The evolution piece I have trouble with. Oh, I know Spike's fish try to climb out of their bowl, and frankly if I had to live at Spike's house I would too. But c'mon.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks