Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrophobe
First of all, that is the lamest deflection I've ever read on this forum. At least it also serves as a concession. Congratulations.
|
this "lame definition" came from dictionary. com. tis also known as the accepted official definition. but i guess you dont like it because it doesnt fit your idea of a definition..
Quote:
|
Here's a broad stroke for you: every animal you see is the beneficiary of mutation, adaptation, and success.
|
wheres the proof for it? where does mutation fit into the picture? how do you know that the "mutation" wasnt in the animals gene to begin with? adaption and success is not proof of anything because they can happen without evolution. also, mutation cam happen without evolution.
Quote:
There are a few terms you should be familiar with before we go down this road.
1. Natural Selection. Essentially what natural selection describes is preferential breeding dictated by environment. An example: Moths. Pre-industrial revolution, a species of moth adapted its markings and colorings to mimic the bark of a birch tree in England. One direct result of the industrial revolution in this specific area was heavy soot. This soot tended to collect on everything, but specifically it collected on the birch trees. This caused an immediate problem for the moths as their ability to blend into the bark and avoid predators was compromised. Moths that were darker, by subtle gene variation and mutation and by process of natural selection, were more likely to pass their genes on because they survived in higher numbers. Draw this affect out thousands of generations of moths, all the moths were black, and were again blending into their environment. Industrial revolution butts heads with people's health and well-being, soot output is cut, birch trees regain their white bark, moths adapt again through natural selection, moths are white to match the birch trees.
You can watch evolution in action, every day, through natural selection.
|
natural selection and evolution are not exclusive to each other. also, theres no proof that the peppered moth didnt exist before the white moth. so, it might have nothing to do with mutation but more with spreading the already existing gene. you dont know if that gene was created at that time.
Quote:
|
2. Radiation of Species. This is how a species creates derivation within the species. Imagine a boat. The boat is in Chile. The boat takes on ballast, and in that ballast, it takes on the coral polyps and baby jellyfish, and snails that are found only in the waters off Chile. The boat sails to, say, the Galapagos, and pumps some of its ballast water out, and with it, its castaways. At this precise moment, that species has diverged. Each will interact and evolve independent of one another, through natural selection to maximize their chances for survival by naturally selecting the specific attributes of individual members of the species that can best adapt to the environments in which they are found. Draw that out thousands or millions of generations.
|
again, natural selection is not exclusive to evolution. i dont think you realize this but natural selection is another theory. adaptation is a passive phase. changing of a gene to meet the environmental changes is an active phase. they are different things.
Quote:
I suggest you read a book called "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. He is a better writer than I, but addresses these exact ideas, in detail, plus many more. Including specific "animals" (Finches and lizards I believe) that have evolved to survive the environment in which they are studied.
I've given you, in those two terms, everything you need to understand how evolution works. The last aspect you'll need to understand is the timeframe. Within these two ideas, you can see the smallest, most incremental steps of change. Imagine the changes that accrue over millions of years and trillions of generations of slight mutations, natural selections, and radiations. Is it that hard to imagine diversity?
|
actually, there needs to be a lot more evidence then just circumstantial evidence. you and i both know that in order for evolution to be true, all circumstantial evidence also has to be true. youre basing your unproven idea on a bunch of other unproven ideas, and then say that its fact... theres a reason why evolution has never been proven.. because theres no proof of it.
also, could you explain the evolutionary responses that are required in order for an animal to go a drastic evolutionary change? can you point to 3 generations of an animal one before change, one during, and one after? also, the human environment has greatly changed since the caveman days, yet were still the same. we still have the same instincts and the same basic structures. why havent we changed? if evolution were true, it would have to be true to us as well. and if evolutionary responses were true, then the major animal that would have been affected by this would be humans. how is it that the one animal that has changed its environment the most out of any animal has shown no evolutionary response to this change?
also, why are you not acknowledging that evolution is just an unproven theory? do you think that there hasnt been enough study on it? any of the phenomenons we see that is explained by evolution can also have, currently unknown, theories to explain them. do you not agree?
and a final question... do you think evolution could be wrong?