{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/4/2015 3:22:00 PM
1
Im sorry actual information isn't convincing. You're a lost cause.
English
-
[quote]I'm sorry [b]actual information isn't convincing.[/b][/quote]?
-
Edited by Britton: 5/4/2015 3:56:23 PMI know I'm also confused as to how you can still cling to your incorrect notions after everything I've told you. Seriously, go research DNA, ecology, and how animals interact with their ecosystems and how ecological niches help shape evolution too. Research the mass extinction events of history, exactly how extensive the fossil record really is, and how the fossils found always correlate with the correct layer anywhere on earth. Go research from actual scientific sources that explain exactly how they arrived at the answers they have. If you spend some time doing that in earnest, and stop sucking up this religious anti scientific propaganda you might actually learn something.
-
The fossil record is debatable and sketchy and so is the timescale. Look up genetic entropy.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 7:00:12 AMFrom what I understand is that it falls back on the laws of thermodynamics and how entropy in a closed system only increases. So it attempts to debunk evolution by that it means because evolution indicates a general increase in life forms on earth, through increased genetic variation, which isn't entropy, it must be impossible. The issue is that earth isn't a closed system so it doesn't have to constantly have increasing entropy. We have a constant influx of energy from the sun, so entropy does not have to increase.
-
That's not genetic entropy or at least, it's not why I meant. I may be using the wrong term but I'm fairly sure I'm not. I agree that arguments is rubbish. Entropy is basically the degrading of DNA over the generations. In humans there are 300 detrimental degradations of the human genome per generation and they are cumulative. They build up and up and eventually there are too many and it leads to extinction. I think the number was something like 80 thousand years before the problems build up to the point of extinction.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 1:14:13 PMAh. I see. Well I suppose that will definitely be a problem in humans. We aren't subject to natural selection like animals are. We preserve those "bad" genes through modern medicine, and they get passed on. As for how that would apply in general, I guess 99% of all species to ever exist being extinct should mean something.
-
Well actually, the degradations are 'invisible' to natural selection, so you don't generally notice them util they reach a lethal level. It's the same with the shortening of telomeres.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/5/2015 4:39:23 PMBut what evidence is there that happens uniformly over time across an entire species?
-
Edited by My Name Is John: 5/5/2015 4:57:00 PMJohn Stanford conducted research on it, it'll be online somewhere but I'm not sure where I'm afraid. I think it was average
-
I found a thesis on it. But no experiments.
-
Unfortunately there are no sources that don't have something to do with "creation research"
-
[quote]Seriously, go research DNA, ecology, and how animals interact with their ecosystems and how ecological niches help shape evolution too.[/quote]I thought you stated to me in a previous reply that environmental hazards doesn't affect the genetics of an organism. Correct?
-
Go back and read it. I stated that if a hazard causes a change, the removal of that hazard doesn't mean it reverts back.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/5/2015 2:11:48 AMUm, it evidently does. Remember the insect scenario in the OP? Is not macro-evolution the same as a lot of micro-evolution put together?
-
Its is the same, and as I've pointed about the OP, the insect scenario isn't documented it backed up in any way. What you propose in that scenario is incorrect.
