Do species actively evolve toward a certain outcome...

[Mokele]

hahaha, you can't possibly be saying that when a mother sacrifices herself to save an infant could possibly in any way shape or form represent evolution. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. And on top of that, you guys are using animals killing themselves as an example of evolution. And you guys are using examples like: if a red-back-something-or-other-spider killed itself in order to better represent itself in its gene pool, than that is considered evolution and maybe it will 'evolve' itself to kill itself more efficiently or quickly and some of you think that is considered EVOLUTION, but its not. That would be considered mastering something. Mastering a technique and evolution are 2 different things (similar in some ways but still different)

 

If the redback's behavior is not evolution, then why is the paper I'm getting this info from published in the journal Evolution? Somehow I think the editors of the biggest peer-review journal in evolutionary biology know what evolution is.

 

Behavior can be shaped by evolution. They're called "instincts". Not every behavior is learned; mammalian ineffiency does not typify the rest of nature.

 

Or perhaps you'd like to explain why spiders kept separately, who never see another member of their species, all spin the same web design that typifies the species? No trial-and-error, and they don't have enough of a brain to learn something that complex.

 

Mokele

[Deified]

I don't accept the premise.

Fair enough, i am now dropping the example as a failed experiment.

[KholdStunner]

no evolution doesn't mean that. I think you need to learn what it does mean before making such proclamations.

 

well, your acting as though we know EVERYTHING about evolution. When in fact we dont. You have your sources and thoeires and i have mine. And until we actually do kno everything there is about evolution, then everyone should be able to express their theories without someone saying its wrong because they read it somewhere in some magazine.

[Ophiolite]

I think you'll find that Mokele, and others, did not get their theories 'out of some magazine', but through University degree courses and post graduate research. You might want to consider giving their comments more weight.

[Deified]

well, your acting as though we know EVERYTHING about evolution. When in fact we dont. You have your sources and thoeires and i have mine. And until we actually do kno everything there is about evolution, then everyone should be able to express their theories without someone saying its wrong because they read it somewhere in some magazine.

You were saying that someone elses theory was wrong... a bit hypocritical I think. Also, your theory was ridiculous and does not fall in the realm of reasonable doubt.

[Sayonara]

well, your acting as though we know EVERYTHING about evolution. When in fact we dont. You have your sources and thoeires and i have mine. And until we actually do kno everything there is about evolution, then everyone should be able to express their theories without someone saying its wrong because they read it somewhere in some magazine.

That post is idiotic.

[rakuenso]

well, your acting as though we know EVERYTHING about evolution. When in fact we dont. You have your sources and thoeires and i have mine. And until we actually do kno everything there is about evolution, then everyone should be able to express their theories without someone saying its wrong because they read it somewhere in some magazine.

 

I'd like see some of your sources for your theories

 

as for mine... check out the millions of evolution periodicals available at your local university or internet.

[coquina]

I'd like see some of your sources for your theories

 

as for mine... check out the millions of evolution periodicals available at your local university or internet.

 

Just a reminder, and I'm not zinging you, rakeuenso, - some sources are legit., but just because something has been published or there is a web page about it doesn't mean it should be taken for "gospel". One needs to check the veracity of the source.

[Deified]

That post is idiotic.

For an english assignment this weekend I have to write a story in the style of Hemingway, in fact, you write very much like Hemingway: Simple and brutal. I like it.

[KholdStunner]

That post is idiotic.

 

i would like to kno how this post contributes to the thread in any way.

 

and it doesnt matter where you hear about evolution, none of it can be proven or falsified. there for a magazine is as likely a source for the truth of evolution as the universities around the world. They are all just theories.

 

-and i apoligize for the last 2 comments i made, they were kind of out of line, but i stick with what i said

[Mokele]

and it doesnt matter where you hear about evolution, none of it can be proven or falsified.

 

Um, yes, it can be. If I claim Lamarckian inheritance is real, that can be falsified. If I claim that natural and sexual selection can operate as countervailing pressures in certain circumstances, I can prove that.

 

Some sources are more reputable than others, and can back up their claims with facts and experiments and observational studies. Others cannot. Ergo, not all sources are equal.

 

They are all just theories.

 

Evidently, you do not understand what "theory" is, in scientific terms.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

i would like to kno how this post contributes to the thread in any way.

 

and it doesnt matter where you hear about evolution' date=' none of it can be proven or falsified. there for a magazine is as likely a source for the truth of evolution as the universities around the world. They are all just theories.

 

-and i apoligize for the last 2 comments i made, they were kind of out of line, but i stick with what i said[/quote']

See above post.