Where did Darwin get his ideas?

[Paralith]

No, Dennisg, evolution is not a social worldview. Evolution is a theory that describes how the physical universe works. Just like gravity does.

 

Repeated for emphasis.

[lucaspa]

What I did contained invective, aggression, and I was also mocking, however, it was not an ad hom.

 

"1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "

 

However, I respected your points, respected you, and mocked religious belief in general.

 

You are trying to restrict ad hominem only to me. But it also applies to ideas and people you are talking about. You appealed to prejudices and attacked character. Your opponents are theists and deity, not me.

 

"mentally handicapped people " is ad hominem against theists. "super natural cosmic dictator" is ad hominem against deity. Instead of looking at arguments, you made an attack on the character of your opponents: theists and deity.

 

My mocking of belief in religion and the fairy tales was not used in support of my argument, and was, in fact, peripheral to it.

 

It wasn't? Let's look again:

"In my view, the inclusion of such a "god possibility" only offers solice to the mentally handicapped people who are still struggling to reconcile their belief in god and their Iron Age fairy tales with their empirical knowledge of the natural universe. "

 

You didn't discuss at all the role of science here, which is what I was doing. Instead, your position is that deity is not required. Your claim is that deity is only included because of "mentally handicapped people". That is in direct support of your argument.

 

"This little semantic word game you're playing is not wrong. Science cannot tell us that a "super natural cosmic dictator" is not required."

 

Of course, you then went on to say that science can tell us that deity is not required. But look here: you are appealing to prejudice in that we don't like dictators.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

You are relying upon the article stating that ad hominem can only be used in regard to the person you are discussing against. Notice that this statement is in the Introduction, and the disclaimer at the beginning of the articles says specifically that this section may need revising!

 

However, scroll down and look at the form of the argument.

 

The ad hominem logic we have is: deity is false (your claim), theists claim deity, there is something objectionable about theists (they are mentally handicapped). Typical ad hominem.

[Dennisg]

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

[iNow]

I say again, exactly which point of my rebuttal above in post #51 and post #57 do you think is mistaken?

 

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible.

This implies that parts of evolution are wrong. Which parts of evolution are you saying are wrong?

 

 

The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives.

Simply repeating a point does not provide it with accuracy. You were wrong the last time you said this and you are wrong again. First, survival of the fittest is not Darwin's idea. I guess you are not reading replies to you which are counter to your worldview because this has been discussed already.

 

Second, evolution did not lead to anything. The loss of lives came from megalomaniacal crazy people who worked their way into positions of power.

 

Third, evolution is an accurate description of nature. Lying to yourself will not change how nature operates, and I encourage you to bear this in mind as you move forward in life.

 

 

 

But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility.

Responsibiltiy for what, exactly?

 

The fact that you even use the word "evolutionists" shows that you are seriously biased on this issue, and that you are working from half-facts and outright falsehoods.

 

Who in your spiritual life has been lying to you about the truth of nature?

 

 

 

They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution.

What is wrong about evolution beside the fact that it makes your iron age fairy tales look even more silly?

[PhDP]

... I'm curious to see where that "100 millions" comes from. Of course I'm not going to ask for any serious reference, I doubt I would get any, but I'm still curious. Most communists refused the science of evolution, and Nazi, well, I can't believe someone would argue that Nazism was caused by the theory of evolution.

[iNow]

A great post over at Blog Around the Clock tonight that reminded me of this thread.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/09/creationism_is_just_one_sympto_1.php

Creationism Is Just One Symptom Of Conservative Pathology

 

I am not an "evolutionist". I am not a "Darwinist". I am a biologist. Thus, by definition, I am an evolutionary biologist.

As I am also interested in history and philosophy of biology, I consider myself a Darwinian. But not a "Darwinist" or "evolutionist" - those two words are Creationists' constructs. They arise from the basic misunderstanding of evolution. Being religious believers they cannot fathom that people can operate outside of the realm of belief, thus they assume that evolution is a belief, akin to and in competition with their belief.

 

I do not believe in evolution. It is not something you believe in or not: it is something you understand or not. <more at

link

>

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

We are in agreement that science cannot be used to disprove the hand of some god in the process, just like science cannot be used to disprove that fairies, unicorns, or dragons have some hand in the process of evolution.

No, we don't agree to the second. Because we can disprove the existence of those 3. Think about it for a minute; we already have the data to do this, you only have to apply it to this problem. Therefore, since unicorns, fairies, and dragons don't exist, they can't be involved in the process.

I wanted to end this tangent of ours as it was taking us farther and farther away from the topic of trying to explain in a clear and accurate way what evolution is to Dennis, but I'm not following your logic and could use clarification if you'd be so kind.

 

When and how have we disproved the existence of fairies, unicorns, dragons, and leprechauns?

 

 

First, you asserted that we can disprove their existence, then you said flatly that they don't exist. Which is it?

 

You've just asserted with certainty their non-existence, and I want to know what data you are using to support this.

Edited September 15, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

So, let's start with the rolled up dimensions of String Theory. They "cannot be measured, perceived, or detected", can they? But do we we say they "can be fully ignored and disregarded"? Nope. Instead, we are working at ways to detect them.

 

How about tachyons? Can't be detected by our current instruments. Have we "fully ignored and disregarded" the existence of tachyons? Again, no.

 

I don't mean to derail the thread, but here goes:

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. The key difference is that with tacyons and strings, you can propose a way to detect them. And if it is beyond our current capabilities to do that, we can fall back on using mathematical models to describe them and therefore justify their existence. Even if we can't detect them or gather data we can still claim they exist via rigourous mathematical proofs.

 

You can't quite do that with gods. Or unicorns. Or angels and demons. In fact, what I notice from theists claiming that science can't disprove gods and angels is that they often remain silent about the fact that it also can't disprove unicorns, invisible flying dragons, the goddess Athena or the god Vishnu. I really wonder why

Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots

[pioneer]

If you look at historical trends in animals on earth one can see they are advancing, with humans currently at the top of the food chain. So evolution represents biological advancement. Where the debate begins is how and why does nature advance. Selection offers one explanation but selection does not have to imply the best path of advancement since selective advantage can be dictated by the environment.

 

The bully in the playground has selective advantage but in the nerd in the boardroom has selective advantage. In terms of advancement, the nerd may be more advanced, in real terms, but if the environment was stuck in the playground stage, selective advantage would perpetuate regressive genes.

 

One of the misconceptions with Darwinism is that selective advantage meant the fastest path for evolution. In terms of a social projection, whoever was in charge had selective advantage so even if they acted like a caveman, it implied this was evolutionary. Using that philosophy, people like Hitler could come along and by simply dominating the environment he could be deemed evolutionary even when regressive. This is why social Darwinism was tried but never seem to work right. But biology never learnt from this in terms of selective advantage not allows implying, the best path for evolution.

 

For example, you can have a forest of old regressive trees dominating the canopy. The new evolutionary trees on the forest floor, which will be the future of the forest, may have not selective advantage due to lack of sun. It may take a forest fire or a hurricane to knock down the old trees before significant evolution can occur. Under this new environment evolution now is able to move forward. Selective advantage before the fire meant slowing down evolution.

 

With Darwinism we fixate on the old fashion trees dominating the canopy and call that one old fashion tree with a little edge evolution, but ignore the possibility that the future of evolution is sitting in the shade and needs the environment to change. The earth is dynamic so it is a matter of time.

 

This creates the second problem. The data is discontinuous. Based on our old fashion forest we are more likely to find regressive trees as fossil evidence. The advanced trees who can't grow easily may not show up. Being true to science we have to assume they did not exist and only selective advantage among old trees was the path of evolution. But then we also find a quantum jump in trees as though they magically appear through mutations. The odds are these were already there and progressing. When the environment change they were finally able to come into the light. But the fossils may not be there since they didn't have selective advantage even if they were more advanced in terms of real evolutionary potential.

[john5746]

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

 

You would make a great Vice President.

[iNow]

If you look at historical trends in animals on earth one can see they are advancing, with humans currently at the top of the food chain.

Rubbish.

 

 

So evolution represents biological advancement.

Wrong.

 

 

Pioneer - You SERIOUSLY need to spend some time learning about what evolution really is before you keep spouting your ridiculous, inaccurate, and completely speculative bullshit.

[pioneer]

INow you have a wild hair up your butt. By advancing I was thinking in terms of anatomical and behavior, with the collective human body and behavior combination at the top. Humans have selective advantage in all the environments of the earth if we so desire. The single cell is less advanced than multicellular which evolved later. Cold blooded evolved first and warm blooded second. Warm blooded has more advantages. Humans came after apes and not before apes, because human are more advanced, etc.

 

All I was showing is an example of how a more advanced species, in terms of a futuristic state, may not have selective advantage. So what appears to be quantum jumps in fossil data may have been due to obsolete having selective advantage and crowding it out so it has to wait until the environment makes it manifest.

 

In terms of a social example, women were considered second class citizens up to the past few centuries. This was due to the social environment set up to support the cool blooded male dinosaurs. Once that environment changed, women did not undergo a quantum change in intelligence. It was always there. The new environment allowed it to become manifest. Evolutionary theory would miss that boat here by a mile and assume a quantum change in female genetics, if this was an animal example.

 

If we call history, fossil evidence, up to the more recent times there are few female history fossils (entries in history). It is not that women were not there, or they were not smart or evolved enough. It was because the selective advantage stacked the social environment so mostly male history fossils would be found. If we apply evolutionary theory to this about a hundred years ago a female had selective advantage because she had quantum developed higher intelligence that did not exist a hundred years ago. She could not have had such intelligence before that, because the history fossil data doesn't support this claim. The reality was females were evolving in the shadows. When the canopy cleared what had been already there in genetics seemed to suddenly appear.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Pioneer, did you actually read this thread at all?

 

I encourage you to read what you type out loud, you will be surprised at the amount of incoherent rubbish that happens to escape your notice.

 

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

 

The ideas of Christianity have lead to the deaths of hundreds of more millions of lives, and continue to do so to this day. Should I hold you responsible for those deaths because you are a Christian?

 

Evolution is not even a social theory, so it is ridiculous to claim that the theory has anything to do with morality whatsoever.

 

This is similar to claiming Newton should be held responsible for airplanes falling out of the sky.

Edited September 17, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

I always knew Newton was up to something...

[Paralith]

INow you have a wild hair up your butt. By advancing I was thinking in terms of anatomical and behavior, with the collective human body and behavior combination at the top. Humans have selective advantage in all the environments of the earth if we so desire. The single cell is less advanced than multicellular which evolved later. Cold blooded evolved first and warm blooded second. Warm blooded has more advantages. Humans came after apes and not before apes, because human are more advanced, etc.

 

If being in all the environments on earth makes us at the top, then bacteria and insects should be at the top too. If what evolved later, like multicellularity, is that much better than what evolved early, like single cellularity, then why are single celled organisms still around and doing great? If being warm blooded is so much better than being cold blooded why are cold blooded animals still around and doing great? Alligators and crocodiles and sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years and show no sign of changing or disappearing any time soon. You are claiming certain traits superior to others simply because of the order in which they appeared in evolutionary history, but that often has little to do with the overall success of the animals holding those earlier developed traits.

 

All I was showing is an example of how a more advanced species, in terms of a futuristic state, may not have selective advantage.

 

Wait. This just flies in the face of your previous paragraph. Now you're saying traits that evolved later and according to you are advanced and better do not have a selective advantage? This makes absolutely no sense.

 

So what appears to be quantum jumps in fossil data may have been due to obsolete having selective advantage and crowding it out so it has to wait until the environment makes it manifest.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

In terms of a social example, women were considered second class citizens up to the past few centuries. This was due to the social environment set up to support the cool blooded male dinosaurs.

 

What? Human women are second class to dinosaurs? If you're trying to make some kind of metaphor or analogy, it's not working very well, especially considering your immediately prior references to cold blooded animals.

 

Once that environment changed, women did not undergo a quantum change in intelligence. It was always there. The new environment allowed it to become manifest. Evolutionary theory would miss that boat here by a mile and assume a quantum change in female genetics, if this was an animal example.

 

No it wouldn't, Pioneer. If a research scientist wanted to accurately gauge the average intelligence of a given species or a given gender in that species, then they would take into account confounding environmental conditions and make as accurate judgments as possible. What is it you're trying to say? That science is incapable of determining when genetic change does and does not occur?

 

If we call history, fossil evidence, up to the more recent times there are few female history fossils (entries in history). It is not that women were not there, or they were not smart or evolved enough. It was because the selective advantage stacked the social environment so mostly male history fossils would be found. If we apply evolutionary theory to this about a hundred years ago a female had selective advantage because she had quantum developed higher intelligence that did not exist a hundred years ago. She could not have had such intelligence before that, because the history fossil data doesn't support this claim. The reality was females were evolving in the shadows. When the canopy cleared what had been already there in genetics seemed to suddenly appear.

 

Firstly: please do not use analogies and metaphors and terms like "history fossils." They only bemuddle and confuse whatever point it is you're trying to make. Your arguments lose credibility drastically when it seems like you're incapable of making a concise and clearly understood point without resorting to vague analogies and terms you invented yourself.

 

Secondly: you're saying that by looking at historical information alone, scientists would conclude that women were not as smart as men. You're talking about written records by people, cultural artifacts which every archaeologist knows are tainted by the beliefs and biases of the people who wrote them and are limited in the amount of actual, reliable, biological information they contain. Human cultural artifacts and written history are not equivalent to fossil and biological evidence. This type of evidence reveals actual patterns and phenomona that did in fact exist at one point in time. And yes, based on spotty information sometimes incorrect deductions are made, but science is always open to change and adjustment based on new evidence found from multiple different disciplines, not just those of archaeology and paleontology.

 

Pioneer, you are in no position to berate other members. You have consistently shown a lack of understanding of basic biology, and have consistently displayed a lack of effort to update your understanding. A debate with you is not an actual debate but a biology lesson with a stubborn student.

[xnebulalordx676]

I trust he gained some of knowledge by simply observances and the meditation of the possibility of a metamorphism for species to protect itself. That life forms are so capable of travel from one geography to another by floating or slithering somehow. He sensed that Geography has harsher elements at some paces and other places with a milder geography enable a slight adapting.

 

 

 

I do not feel that he was trying hard to be an atheist or steer his ideas from that intention to go against organized religion grains. I think he was simply a modern mind and that earlier age.

 

I believe great minds must think alike and believe that all sorts of adaption (s) are possible and necessary based on geographical circumstances; as well as the species known tolerance of what they are able to eat. (their own diet knowledge of themselves, their memory) The species intelligence and goal of self preservation moves him along adapting to all he seeks as his food.

[Edtharan]

In terms of a social example, women were considered second class citizens up to the past few centuries.

This is just plain wrong.

 

In Sparta, women were considered to be almost equal to men, only that they couldn't go into battle. They could own land, hold jobs and even become politicians (well they had to, the men focused on fighting). If we look at it like yo do, then these women were "more advanced".

 

But the thing you are forgetting is that Women and Men are not separate species. We share virtually all our genes (actually women have more genes than men) so it would be very reasonable to assume that both Men and Women have very similar capabilities.

 

Sure, one might be a bit stronger and the other can give birth and the male effectively has degenerate female characteristics (men do have nipples but they are pretty useless). So which is more "advanced"

 

The ones that are stronger and can gather food, or the ones that can reproduce the next generation?

 

Actually, if you leave out humans, then it is generally the females that are the dominant ones. They are usually bigger, live longer, etc. The males are just a handy way to spread genes .

 

Me, I would say that they are adapted for the role that is required. Neither is more "Advanced".

 

Actually this kind of thinking, that one species is more "Advanced" than another, disappeared with Darwin. Yes with Darwin. What Darwin said was that no species is more "Advanced" than another, except when considering the role that it plays in its environment, and that if it is more advanced in that way, then it out competes its rivals and survives to reproduce.

 

That last word is one of the really important ones. It is not about whether it lives or dies that is important for Evolution, but whether or not it reproduces.

 

What I think you are getting confused about is Preadaptation. This is where an organism, through genetic drift, evolves a trait that is not immediately advantageous (and it could even be slightly disadvantageous), but then due to a changing environment, that trait becomes an advantage and so the organism reproduces more.

 

The problem with what you are thinking is that the trait only because an advantage IF the environment changes in that particular way. As these changes are virtually random, then, until that specific change takes place, that organism can't be considered more advantageous.

 

As an example:

 

Imagine a Dog like creature. Due to genetic drift, some of the population develop slightly longer toes on its paws and they become webbed.

 

Now, if the environment become more wet and swimming became necessary, then these individuals would become more fit and you would consider them more advanced.

 

However, what if instead the environment became drier? These would not be considered more advanced.

 

Or how about this one:

 

What if there was an Ape that due to there being lots of food, they were able to develop big brains. Now big brains require a lot of food (our brains consume a lot of the energy we take in), so what if the environment changed so that there was no longer a lot of food available?

 

Would those big brains be an advantage or a disadvantage. Which would be considered more "advanced" a creature that has a trait that causes it to starve to death, or one that doesn't have that trait?

 

For example, you can have a forest of old regressive trees dominating the canopy.

The Environment is not just the rocks and the soil and the air, it is also other organisms. So in your example, those large trees are part of the environment and if they can out compete the new trees by being bigger first, than that is not a problem.

 

In evolution most organisms will die before reproducing. For a population to remain stable, then the number of individuals that survive in a generation must be equal to the number of individuals in the previous generation.

 

This means that if you have a species that has 1000 offspring, then for the population to remain stable, only 2 of them survive and the rest of the 998 die (and this is important) before they can reproduce.

 

As a direct example:

Lets assume that there is a species that has an average of 4 offspring each generation and it can reproduce after 3 years (the generation time) and the parents die after reproducing.

 

So starting with a reasonable population of 1000, after the first generation (and the parents dying) we have:

 

500 breeding pairs * 4 offspring = 2000

 

In generation 2: 4000

 

In generation 3: 8000

 

In generation 4: 16000

 

In generation 5: 32000

 

In generation 6: 64000

 

In generation 7: 128000

 

In generation 8: 256000

 

In generation 9: 512000

 

In generation 10: 1024000

 

So in 10 generations we have gone from a population of 1 thousand to over 1 million! That is an increase of a thousand fold!

 

With the generation time of just 3 years, this is only 30 years.

 

But lets continue:

 

In generation 20 (60 years): 1,048,576,000

 

In generation 30 (90 years): 1,073,741,824,000

 

So if all this species offspring survived, then in under 100 years (within a human's lifetime) the number of individuals would be over 1 trillion!

 

This proves that for evolution to work many organisms must die. So the fact that those old trees were overshadowing the younger trees is important, but not for the way you were thinking. It is not about one being more advanced and the other regressive.

 

It is not even that the younger trees are competing against the older trees.

 

The older trees would be competing against each other to get their seeds more widely spread and the younger tress would be competing with each other for the available light and to be the fastest to grow when (and if) an older tree falls near them.

 

Humans have selective advantage in all the environments of the earth if we so desire.

No.

 

In Antarctica without the support from outside that environment, humans would die very quickly. Even with all our technology, if we didn't get regular supplies from elsewhere, we could not survive. However, Look at the Penguins, Seals and Whales. These creatures thrive in these environments where as we would die. I would say that these creatures have a massive selective advantage over humans in these environments.

 

This is why social Darwinism was tried but never seem to work right.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with real evolution. It is a catch phrase that political spin doctors put on a horrendous idea (eugenics).

 

If Social Darwinism did use the real science of evolution, then it would conclude that eugenics is a bad idea.

 

To avoid inbreeding, a population needs to have a wide genetic base. You NEED variation. But Social Darwinism (and eugenics) acts to reduce the variation. Social Darwinism is the exact opposite of what evolution says you should do.

 

Social Darwinism is not based on Evolution..

[iNow]

It's funny, Edtharan. You didn't put the name in the quote, but I knew immediately that you were responding to Pioneer since the quoted comment was so sexist and ignorant. Funny how the world works sometimes.

[Knupfer]

I was wondering if anyone has done some research into this topic. I know there are some quick answers to this question but I think the topic deserves a lot more study.

 

From his imagination. He simply looked at some people and thought they looked like apes.

[iNow]

From his imagination. He simply looked at some people and thought they looked like apes.

 

I was going to leave this comment alone, but after reading your other 5 posts so far, and seeing that you called evolution a "delusion," I decided your statement warranted correction.

 

Humans ARE apes.

 

Most everyone already understood that organisms changed. Darwin simply described how and why.

 

 

I'll give you credit for at least using the term ape instead of monkey, but evolution by natural selection is no delusion.

[Knupfer]

I was going to leave this comment alone, but after reading your other 5 posts so far, and seeing that you called evolution a "delusion," I decided your statement warranted correction.

 

Humans ARE apes.

 

Most everyone already understood that organisms changed. Darwin simply described how and why.

 

 

I'll give you credit for at least using the term ape instead of monkey, but evolution by natural selection is no delusion.

 

Since evolutionists don't know from which creature man descended because the so-called "common ancestor" is still as imaginary as he's always been, then some people will say we came from monkeys, others say from apes and still others make up other beasts of their imaginations. So since evolution is imaginary, I can see why there's much confusion over from which beast evolutionists claim that man evolved. Either way, calling a human an ape doesn't make it possible for apes to breed human descendants. So it's a waste of time to call a human an ape. So all you're proving is my statement correct that evolutionists don't know the difference between humans and animals.

 

Nevertheless, if you want to call a human an ape, then what you're actually saying is that humans have always come only from humans as creationists have always known. So either way, you defeat your own theory. Sorry.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Huh?

 

You seem to have a misguided understanding of speciation.

 

Let's suppose I find a group of apes living in Africa and steal half of them and dump them in Australia. Then I wait a good, say, ten million years, and come back and compare the apes. They'll be different.

 

Why? Because tiny changes have accumulated over time. Could I look back through all the ancestor apes and say "this is where it became a new kind of ape"? No. Can I look back through human history and pick the one human where "this one's parents were not human"? No. The change between parent and child is almost always tiny.

 

Infinitesimally small changes add up. Ask anyone who's done integral calculus.

[Knupfer]

Huh?

 

You seem to have a misguided understanding of speciation.

 

Let's suppose I find a group of apes living in Africa and steal half of them and dump them in Australia. Then I wait a good, say, ten million years, and come back and compare the apes. They'll be different.

 

Why? Because tiny changes have accumulated over time. Could I look back through all the ancestor apes and say "this is where it became a new kind of ape"? No. Can I look back through human history and pick the one human where "this one's parents were not human"? No. The change between parent and child is almost always tiny.

 

Infinitesimally small changes add up. Ask anyone who's done integral calculus.

 

How do you know they'll be different? :eek:You're simply making up stories. Sorry friend, but one animal doesn't change into another just because you want it to. Do you not understand what re-production is? reproduction is when a species reproduces itself, not another animal.

 

So the theory of evolution is nothing but a "what-if" game which is what sci-fi moves and books are based on. "What if once upon a time, a gazillion years ago an ape turned into a human? That's no different than saying; 'once upon a time aliens once changed into humans through mutations." You guys are so funny. You really need to learn the difference between science and science fiction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How do you know they'll be different? :eek:You're simply making up stories. Sorry friend, but one animal doesn't change into another just because you want it to. Do you not understand what re-production is? reproduction is when a species reproduces itself, not another animal.

Do you not understand what speciation by natural selection and reproductive isolation is?

 

Perhaps you should read up on evolution before getting into arguments about it.

 

So the theory of evolution is nothing but a "what-if" game which is what sci-fi moves and books are based on. "What if once upon a time, a gazillion years ago an ape turned into a human? That's no different than saying; 'once upon a time aliens once changed into humans through mutations." You guys are so funny. You really need to learn the difference between science and science fiction.

Evolution was based on an empirical argument that goes something like this.

1. Traits can be inherited through genes.
   
2. Genes can mutate, creating new phenotypes.
   
3. Different phenotypes can give an organism either an advantage or disadvantage for survival.
   
4. Those organisms with advantageous phenotypes survive to have more offspring than those with disadvantageous phenotypes.
   
5. They pass their advantageous traits on through genes.
   
6. Therefore, better-adapted organisms survive and random mutations that make an organism better-suited for survival stay, while those that don't are selected against and disappear from the population.
   
7. Thus, a population can change over time.
   

 

Can you point to any one step in that argument that is flawed? At no point does one species reproduce another animal. It simply reproduces a very slightly different version of itself, much the same way your parents produced you instead of a clone of themselves.

[Knupfer]

Do you not understand what speciation by natural selection and reproductive isolation is?

 

Natural selection is a myth. The fit and the unfit always co-exist in every species. Mating and breeding is what passes along genes to offspring, not environment or adaptation. So evolution has made up imaginary scenarios and false statements to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

Traits can be inherited through genes.

 

And how do genes pass from parent to offspring? Through mating and breeding. So sorry, but humans can't "inherit" tiger genes unless we can breed with tigers. So the rest of your statements are moot.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you not understand what speciation by natural selection and reproductive isolation is?

 

Natural selection is a myth. The fit and the unfit always co-exist in every species. Evolution has made up imaginary scenarios and false statements to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Substantiate that claim. Why is natural selection a myth? Why should unfit animals not gradually die out?

 

And how do genes pass from parent to offspring? Through mating and breeding. So sorry, but humans can't "inherit" tiger genes unless we can breed with tigers. So the rest of your statements are moot.

 

And when did I state otherwise? You don't seem to even have a basic knowledge of evolution. Go read about it. Here, read this.