Evil-ution

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Until you have actual evidence to prove what you say, it's a guess. To proclaim it as scientific fact is ridiculous.

Scientific and fact are two things that cannot co-exist. Theory is as absolute as you can get in science because 1. There are exceptions to every rule. (On the molecular and quantum levels, even basic principles behave erratically from larger structures.) and 2. Science in and of itself is smart enough to know that it isn't the answer to everything, merely the process by which to observe the best answers technology and intelligence can ascertain at any given point.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Is there anyone in here arguing from a religious perspective or is denim just posting random images?

 

---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

 

Not random when faith is mentioned. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I think he answered that for you.

I suspect this is what he thought to himself: "The thread is 5 pages long, time to post things that are completely unrelated, but directed at those whom are the minority. I bet I can get some attaboys from members of the forum."

 

[Fightingeagle12 10+ year member]

The theory of evolution is a “Theory.” A theory is a widely accepted idea based on facts, but not a law because there is no definite proof. There are facts that point to evolution and that is what many accept as where humans came from. Religion is based on blind faith because there is no proof. But both are theories that explain how humans came into existence. Human nature desires to find out where we came from. These are the two most popular ideas, but I have also done research on Native American and Mexican beliefs.

… why is the fact that there are holes being argued? Unless you have a time machine and go back in time there is no way to tell 100% what actually happened…maybe we are aliens.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

1. You criticize me saying I have no idea what evolution even means.

Correct

2. You state that evolution is (in your words) "COMPLETELY 100% UNDENIABLY RANDOM" (ok I may have exaggerated a tad, but you get the idea)

Almost correct, Mutations are random, every time a organism mutates its random. Whether or not that trait continues or dies out is dependent on the environment.

.

3. You turn around in this statement and claim that evolution that proves to be without advantage is lost due to the "survival of the fittest" clause. A clause that merely a page ago you in a roundabout sense stated you didn't subscribe to, nor does it have anything to do with what you were trying to say.

Wrong, Acquired characteristics are not the same as reproductive fitness. Although acquired characteristics can possibly be in ways that can be passed, it's rare.

4. You claim I have no idea what "adaptation" is, then give me (one of the many) wiki articles for "The ability to adapt". Adaptation and the capacity to adapt are two very separate things.

Well genius, correct me if I'm wrong but if you lack the ability to adpat, you don't adapt. That ability is an evolved trait.

5. You quoted someone else's generalized opinion. That must mean you're smart.

I'm sure

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

I just find it amazing how the universe is so orderly. Individual planet rotation, mutly planet orbit, galaxy orbit, galaxy cluster orbit, etc. Science can know where almost any object in the universe will be at any given time, present or future because of the order of things. Just a small example of how if you really step back and look at the forest as a whole instead of getting lost in the trees you can begin to better question chaos vs order.

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

Lots of adaptations are cognitive, learned behaviours. They have nothing to do with evolution. Adapting can be as simple as changing the environment instead of the specimen. That is where you are wrong. Adaptation is not an evolved trait. The first micro-organisms had the capacity to adapt to their surroundings. Ones that survived initial contact with a non hospitable environment stimuli would move away from its localization. That is an adaptation. That is the ability to adapt. Neither of those things were evolved in the subjects in order for them to have happened. A way to prove this, is science can essentially create organic life through synthetic processes now; which makes them first generation life forms. These first generation life forms have shown to be capable of adaptation, albeit not nearly as prominent as future generations.

I'm sorry you feel so sure of your intelligence and concept of life in general. I'm here to tell you that you know nothing, like the rest of us.

 

[soloXgt 10+ year member]

. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!! MOST MUTATIONS ARE NEGATIVE!!!

Actually, most mutations go unnoticed since they mostly occur in non-translated parts of the genome in the "junk" DNA). Most bad mutations are destroyed or cannot function due to structural instability in their tertiary structure. Whereas the negative mutations that are noticed maintain structural integrity and have a separate function, or no function at all (where in this case, the body would need something important from this malformed protein, ei. chaperone protein). Same goes for a positive mutation, where this new/improved protein functions better/has positive effect on the body.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

Lulz I'z sawee you're explanation for why things that live in caves look much like things that don't cept their eyes don't work iz much better than mine. Oh wait, you can't explain that.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Actually, most mutations go unnoticed since they mostly occur in not translated parts of the genome in the "junk" DNA). Most bad mutations are destroyed or cannot function due to structural instability in their tertiary structure. Whereas the negative mutations that are noticed maintain structural integrity and have a separate function, or no function at all (where in this case, the body would need something important from this protein ei. chaperone protein). Same goes for a positive mutation, where this new/improved protein functions better/has positive effect on the body.

Touche'

I was referring to phenotype traits, should have made that clear. Most "expressed" mutations will be negative. Non functioning eyes in cave dwellers are an example of a neutral phenotype mutation.

 

[soloXgt 10+ year member]

Touche'
I was referring to phenotype traits, should have made that clear. Most "expressed" mutations will be negative. Non functioning eyes in cave dwellers are an example of a neutral phenotype mutation.

Wrong again. Won't these "expressed" positive mutations have a phenotype of being able to adapt better? That's a phenotype. Also, some of the BEST positive mutations have a phenotype. People only focus on the negative phenotypic traits due to their visible abnormalities.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Lots of adaptations are cognitive, learned behaviours. They have nothing to do with evolution. Adapting can be as simple as changing the environment instead of the specimen. That is where you are wrong. Adaptation is not an evolved trait. The first micro-organisms had the capacity to adapt to their surroundings. Ones that survived initial contact with a non hospitable environment stimuli would move away from its localization. That is an adaptation. That is the ability to adapt. Neither of those things were evolved in the subjects in order for them to have happened. A way to prove this, is science can essentially create organic life through synthetic processes now; which makes them first generation life forms. These first generation life forms have shown to be capable of adaptation, albeit not nearly as prominent as future generations.
I'm sorry you feel so sure of your intelligence and concept of life in general. I'm here to tell you that you know nothing, like the rest of us.

I may not be as intelligent as I think, but i'm intelligent to know your argument is 0% logical. cognition is an evolved trait (emergent property to be specific).

 

[ahole-ic]

Lulz I'z sawee you're explanation for why things that live in caves look much like things that don't cept their eyes don't work iz much better than mine. Oh wait, you can't explain that.

It was the exact same thing you did. LOL. It wasn't MY explanation. It was to show you how absurd what you said was. It worked.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Wrong again. Won't these "expressed" positive mutations have a phenotype of being able to adapt better? That's a phenotype. Also, some of the BEST positive mutations have a phenotype. People only focus on the negative phenotypic traits due to their visible abnormalities.

No, i'm saying that most changes in the phenotype due to mutation will be negative, meaning they will hurt not help. Technically, most genotype mutation are invisible and don't change the phenotype at all. I think you are getting confused here, let me clarify.

All positive and negative mutations are both phenotypic and genotypic. It has to be expressed in the phenotype to have either a negative or positive effect.

Neutral mutations however could be EITHER only genotypic or both. The vast majority of the time these neutral mutations won't be expressed phenotype. They are also rare in nature because most traits are suited for the environment, so the selective factor on that trait has to be eliminated for the trait to evolve neutrally. IE (something with eyes being trapped in a cave.)

 

[wickedwitt 10+ year member]

No, i'm saying that most changes in the phenotype due to mutation will be negative, meaning they will hurt not help. Technically, most genotype mutation are invisible and don't change the phenotype at all. I think you are getting confused here, let me clarify.
All positive and negative mutations are both phenotypic and genotypic. It has to be expressed in the phenotype to have either a negative or positive effect.

Neutral mutations however could be EITHER only genotypic or both. The vast majority of the time these neutral mutations won't be expressed phenotype. They are also rare in nature because most traits are suited for the environment, so the selective factor on that trait has to be eliminated for the trait to evolve neutrally. IE (something with eyes being trapped in a cave.)

Negatory. A mutation could be non-neutral and be only genotypic or phenotypic. There are plenty of mutations that are genotypic but inexpressed as a phenotype. Think of all the recessive genes we have coded in genetic illnesses and traits that go unexpressed. The term "carrier" is a perfect example of that. Someone can have a genotypic mutation that goes inexpressed, only to have their offspring have both genotypic and phenotypic expressions of it.

 

[destined2race 10+ year member]

Im calling Bill Nye the Science Guy right now.