{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 9:37:28 PM
475
Evolution is often called a "mechanism" of nature (that's how I was told in school anyways). So let's compare it to a mechanical watch. Just for fun. Take a mechanical watch apart, put all its pieces in a box, and shake that box. No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, as the basic principle of probability is that there is [i]always[/i] a chance. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible. Same with evolution. Is there a chance? Sure. There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible.
Just a thought.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/2/2015 2:46:06 PM[quote][quote]We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?[/quote] [b]you're blending two fields of study again.[/b][/quote]You still haven't answered this question.
-
That's because the beginning of life, abiogenesis, is a field that doesn't have a scientific theory to answer that yet.
-
[quote]That's because...abiogenesis...doesn't have a scientific theory to answer that yet.[/quote]Let me know when there is an explanation.
-
I will, they've made some amazing discoveries already. http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/4/2015 7:26:18 PM"Researches may have solved..." I'm just gonna put that out there, and also point out that it stated, "Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start," yet there's no explanation as to the origin or carbon, which is number one element used to distinguish between organic and inorganic. Do you know what determines the substance's element? The number of protons that that element possesses, and we know even today, that that has never happened naturally.
-
[quote]Remember, the fact you are a unique individual is itself proof of evolution.[/quote] (Accidental like when trying to quote, stupid fat fingers...) Wow.
-
Standard genetic variation, which is small changes generation to generation. Also, when you have natural selection actively selecting for and against the different variations, you eventually get a permanent change. But I guess that answer is too good.
-
Therefore mutation is evolution? Nice.
-
Yes, that's one of the driving factors. Genetics my friend.
-
Wow. Just... Wow.
-
I know. Its surprisingly simple when you understand it.
-
Edited by Sylux102: 5/1/2015 10:34:48 PMNo. Natural selection is supposed to rid the population of mutation. But, you just said that mutation is the driving force of evolution. Therefore, evolution rids the population of itself. I suppose you'd argue "no, it only takes away the bad ones." To which my reply is: Then how do "bad" mutations still exist, if evolution has existed for millions of years? Shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now? Flaws and holes a plenty.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/1/2015 11:40:05 PM[quote]No. Natural selection is supposed to rid the population of mutation. [b]not quite. You need to understand what natural selection is. Natural selection is a phrase that describes how the environment (climate, competing species, competing animals of its own species, local environmental hazards, food sources, etc ) the species lives in affects it generation to generation. What happens is the traits and mutations that don't allow an animal to survive as well as it can compared to having another trait or mutation (like color variation), are less likely to passed on to the next generation. As those influencing factors change, so does what is naturally selected, and since environments are never the exact same over time or location to location, you end up with a wide range of results, which results in a wide range of life. It's about the ability to survive. [/b] But, you just said that mutation is the driving force of evolution. [b]I said it's one of them. So is natural selection, migration, and genetic drift.[/b] Therefore, evolution rids the population of itself. [b]no, because that's not what happens like I mentioned.[/b] I suppose you'd argue "no, it only takes away the bad ones." To which my reply is: [b](this isn't what I would argue, but I'll address it since you bring it up)[/b] Then how do "bad" mutations still exist, if evolution has existed for millions of years? Shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now? Flaws and holes a plenty. [b]The only flaws and holes are in your understanding. Bad and good is not a black and white term. For example, the mutation of animals being born completely white (not albino, see pic) would typically be a survival disadvantage in most environments, so it gets selected against, but in some environments that color mutation becomes an advantage, and becomes the norm (example polar bears). Some mutations are neither bad nor good, and simply exist and get passed on by chance until they become the norm, this is called genetic drift. [/b] [/quote]
-
Lol look at you, copying and pasting to look smart. Well, if you're right at the end of all this, enjoy laughing at my headstone. I'm done conversing with someone stuck in Nowehereville. Good day sir.
-
None of that is copy paste. That is all my own words, from my own understanding. I know its rare to run into that on the internet, but I was a park ranger for 3 years, and a forest ranger for 3 more. Understanding evolution and natural selection is part of being able to manage, maintain, and conserve natural lands and endangered species. The more you know.
-
Well, good for you Mr. Ranger. I forgot that that gives you the ultimate authority to determine the real answer in this issue with absolute validity. Excuse me while I go tell Yogi why his species will never turn into a fish, something "evolution" claims it can do. Funny how evolution can't explain why monkeys still exist, since humans came from monkeys apparently. Or any land animals for that matter, since everything allegedly came from the ocean. Here, enjoy a mute.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/1/2015 11:46:19 PMCongrats on showing your lack of understanding on the topic. Evolution does not claim a bear can become a fish. And im not even going to provide a rebuttal to the monkeys comment because that horse has been beaten to death. It still shocks me when a person can say that and expect to be taken seriously. I do not have ultimate authority but I do understand it, and I have observed natural selection at work in nature. So I do have [u]some[/u] authority on the matter, because unlike yourself I understand what evolution is. Thanks for bailing on the topic when someone can prove you wrong.
-
Edited by Sylux102: 5/1/2015 11:47:27 PMLol, evolution does claim that a bear can become a fish [i]if Nature "thinks" it need to be a fish[/i]. Grade school teaches you that buddy. Enjoy yourself while you can, this is all you got. Live it up.
-
At least he'll die with an actual understanding of the world. Please don't reproduce, and if you do, don't brainwash them with your "science is a myth" business, because the human race needs people that will advance our race not stand in one place wasting away, refusing to accept stone hard evidence. The children being born today are what is going to drive us to either extinction or our civilization will explode outwards expanding. The way things are going now with all these closed minds. We're sitting ducks slowly killing ourselves. That is natural selection. As we eat up the planet and continue to scream at each other were killing ourselves. The planet will undoubtedly run out of our non renewable resources, but by then if we're still on this planet were probably already going to be dead, earth is not sustainable. We're pushing the limits of what this planet can do, we will naturally select ourselves if we don't change, or get off it soon. When people like you refuse to accept things as elementary as evolution and natural selection, you're only making yourself look blind. You're not going to convince them it doesn't exist. You're just [i]refusing[/i] to accept it. The children of the future need to understand the planet and how it works, they can be religious and whatever else. But they [b]have[/b] to accept science or else our race [i]will undoubtedly[/i] die on this planet. And soon.
-
Oh look, another Numbskull to mute.
-
Oh look another person that will lead our race to ruin
-
Oh look, another bumper for the bumping of this thread who apparently h8s the b8 but takes it anyway. Wow indeed.
-
Don't worry. It's natural selection. Eventually these close minded people will die out as time goes on.
-
Amen.
-
Maybe that's what you got from it, or that's what your teacher incorrectly taught you, but either way you're still wrong. Please at least understand a topic before you try to debunk it. It just makes you seem like a fool, and your just doing yourself a disservice by doing that.
