Quote:
When he first published his theory all most no one believed him because he was missing evidence. Sure he got some but not enough to prove or disprove it at the time. AND just to be the *ahem* "religious nub" you called me let me tell you this. A lot of people excepted it because it was the only alternitive (spelled wrong) to the christian belief and people openly said that
. Am I your little "religious nub" now?
actually it took awhile to get published and spread around, the idea of natural selection is so simple yet explains so much, im amazed it didnt pop up earlier.
also note it has been just over 150 years since he published such a book. anything that controversial against religion back then wouldnt be greeted with such open arms.
Quote:
Well let me point something out. Most of the specimens. Maybe you should try and give more then one example next time.
touche, asking for actual references, no longer the religious nub already :3
now i hate to use wiki but the references are located at the bottom, so just open those if you wish to challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossilslook in the fish to tetra pods list
* Tiktaalik
still cant remember how to spell it XD
but by far the most convincing is the evolution of the horse and whales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceansby far the most systematically linked.
before you continue to poke at me about missing links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition ... eationistsread that, i dont want to repeat whats there :3
Quote:
Evolution is a theory correct? Which means scientists are not 100 percent sure it happened but they say it did. "Everything science used to explain a group of facts is a theory." No it is not. If everything was a theory scientists would not be sure that there was a core in the center of the planet that was keeping us from getting killed. And back to the "missing link".
The "missing link" between apes and humans is what is supposed to prove evolution. If there really was a "missing link" between human and ape wouldn`t it have been found by now?
are you seriously contesting this? you have once again been rewarded with the title "religious nub"
nothing in science is 100% sure. remember how i stated at a time, scientists believed that an atom was a solid sphere with a neutral charge?
scientists hypothesize that there is a core at the center of the earth, only a semi liquid form of iron kept in a solid state by pressure can explain the "facts" that we have a magnetic field and etc etc.
in the middle it could get hotter and hotter then reach a hollow sphere made of a special metal filled with pixies. science cannot DISPROVE IT. but science can repeatedly try to test it and since no test will come back with positive, the theory will get occhams razored.
evolution has been around for AGES. the scientific census is overwhelming despite the numerous tests conducted.
a theory is considered better then fact. it is what explains a group of facts. and it is open to scientific scrutiny 24/7.
if it is made redundant like thompsons plum pudding model of the atom then it will become redundant and taught as redundant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... _evolutionoh FREAKING WOW. i can trace my way back through the ages with my FINGER :O
Quote:
195 ka Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest fossil evidence for archaic Homo sapiens, evolved from Homo heidelbergensis.
btw, humans probably interbred with neanderthals, although that too is only just a theory.
Quote:
I know we are animals and the person who wrote that never said we were not animals.
Wow new species of bacteria. There is such thing as Micro and Macro evolution. Micro: Small changes like as root said two species breeding together will make changes to whatever is born.
Macro: Big changes like the theory of apes becoming humans.
Have you ever thought that this "new bacteria" was formed by micro evolution? not some "random change"?
I know that evillution is the changing of species. Worms into some other thing into some fish into some land animal into apes into humans.
Now for evillution to be true the earth has to be billions of years old. Well when it was first proposed that the earth was really old it was just a few million . . . then when evolutionests needed more time the earth became a few hundred million years old . . . then when they needed MORE time it became a few billion years old . . . .
My point is that when ever more time was needed to help prove evolution the earth became millions of years older.
2 species breeding together= something like a mule, infertile offspring.
bacteria are special. through meiosis and abuse of this, we can actively choose who to screw their DNA up.
2 bacteria can actually fuse DNA lines with a lot being redundant and removed away fast or sits there quite content. but cultures in labs have mutated to consume vitamin C rather then other organic substances.
there is also the famous finch example by darwin and more recently by 2 scientists looking at finches on the islands of galapogas which are still subject to environmental extremes and still adapt and evolve at a rapid rate.
because of their high rates of multiplication, the environment affects them way more.
same goes for viruses although they contain RNA and arent considered as lifeforms...
the scare about H1N1 is that is might mutate with avian influenza, PURELY BY RANDOM CHANCE when 2 viruses occupy the same host.
alright. im gonna listen to those that are educated in this matter. scientists say there is no macro and micro evolution. they are one and the same, it was merely made up by a creationist with no idea.
actually you shouldnt class people as evolutionists, that "religious nub" tag is sticking. its the same reason you dont call people gravitationists. if it is generally accepted by the scientific community try using the term "scientists"
besides, those that specialize in biology shouldnt be claiming the earth of the age, thats for geologists/cosmologists. and if the theory of evolution does dispute the age, it will be brought forward, assessed, peer reviewed then either the scientifically accepted age will change or EVOLUTION WILL CHANGE.
scientific method is a wonderful thing :3
so if you continue your EVILution, that "religious nub" tag will stick :3
in short, you still havent presented ANYTHING that takes more then 2 minutes thinking to rebut and 3 minutes typing to smash.
next please.
root wrote:
Alright, now we know how the random change happens. How is that supposed to catch on and evolve the species? Is every one of those species going to have that corruption? And if they just breed with the species with the mutation then that's still natural selection.
And why is it that in evolution everything progresses if it's a mutation?
Are all the mutations positive?
Now you're just trying to be a smart guy or that was over your head O.o
alright, you know either nothing about evolution, nothing about natural selection as you supposed claim you support or you know nothing about both.
ill go through the very basics because you should know this.
when a random change occurs, lets say a moth that was once only in the colour of bright white suddenly gets more pigment and becomes a splodgy black+white moth.
its still exactly the same, it uses the same pheromones to attract a mate, the same 6 legs, the same 2 antennaes, just... its splodgy and doesnt look that nice.
the bright white moths are EASILY seen and eaten in huge numbers, they in turn can breed in huge numbers, these moths are at the bottom of the food chain kk?
now this splodgey moth, provided it isnt in flight is nearly undetectable when against a tree or the ground. it survives far easier then the bright white moths.
now if it is lucky enough, it will breed, lets make this simple and say it is a dominant trait rather then recessive, its offspring will contain 75% splodgeys and 25% whiteys
the 25% whiteys that came out, DIE maybe 1 or 2 get through by luck.
60% of the splodgeys live by being better camoflaged then their siblings.
the sploidgeys once again breed, if 2 splodgeys breed they have 100% splodgey offspring with far superior survival rates. if 2 whiteys with splodgey dominants breed, they have a 1:2:1 offspring.
1 pure splodgey, 2 splodgey with whitey genes, 1 whitey.
as you can see, over time eventually the splodgeys would dominate, there will still be white moths, but they become a rarer and rarer occurence until eventually there are only splodgeys. how many generations until 1 splodgey dominates all whiteys? probably 50 perhaps? so in less then a couple years, this moth has changed from pure white to almost pure splodgey.
not all mutations are positive, in humans there is a recessive gene that causes the genetic disorder haemagolpdasiosfnsdoimn... when your blood cant clot. a bruise will swell to massive proportions as the damaged blood vessel BLEEDS and BLEEDS.
i mentioned already 1% are beneficial, 1% are lethal.
such a condition would be lethal without society and civilisation to provide for them
evolution isnt considered human, it is natural selection and survival of the fittest, if you dont bleed out and they do, well.... you get the chicks :3 and your non bleeding out genes get passed on.
natural selection would weed out any genetic faults.
ie. my entire family is short sighted. my short sightedness means i cannot hunt/gather as efficiently. i cannot spot predators nor when running spot the root on the ground. therefore i die. my genes do not get passed on, the people that see better then me pass on their genes.
do i need to explain it in EVEN simpler terms?
