evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

Ah...you've noticed...
Q wasn't being nice. He actually is making some good points I'd like to respond to. But he's offending my delicate sensibilities so I feel he doesn't really want a response but rather wants a test of wills.

And I don't especially enjoy this sort of debating. It draws the discussion off topic rather than remaining dedicated to the facts. I'd rather not play that game.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think i see wherein the problem lies.
You are talking about the genetic mutations in an animal, these are ofcourse very small and dont cause much change.

But when the animal gets offspring it passes on his mutated genes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now if the mutation has any benefit to the offspring, however slight, it will probably stay in the genepool. Whenever something happens that changes the environment some animals that have the gene will have a slight advantage over the other, resulting in better chances of survival.. thus on average more offspring. This offspring will have the new gene, and thus the genepool will contain more and more of the new gene that gives the animals that have it an advantage.
Over many many generations a new species might evolve, this ofcourse take more than one gene to change.. but i guess you get the idea.

See i was talking many generations all along while you were talking parent->offspring.
Species dont change from one generation to another, i think thats what youre actually saying. And you'd be right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is revealed the essential problem (besides your refusal to sit down and learn what evolutionary theory is): you assume a dealer, who has limited the options available.

In the real world, there is no dealer, and no such preset limits on the options: any stretch of the DNA can recombine, duplicate, mutate, invert, jump chormosomes, acquire new regulatory influence, split, acquire inserts, etc.

Some more easily than others.

So we find that some bacteria can alter a third of their genome in a few generations.

That is a lot more than 1%.

And so changes in the genome can - and have been observed to - accumulate. Indefinitely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought you were talking parent and offspring...some how we're on different pages.

I simply saying that whether it be directed parental heredity or ancestoral heredity a species has liimit to change. We've never observed anything else. Life would seem to have limmits.

It's a conclusion thousands of scientist (If not millions have come to) It is indeed the issue of debate. In general opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis Darwin created is curbbed because of the issue of religion that always seems to come to the fore.

But everything I've told you is true. But don't my word for it. I've accumlated a large data based to the topic and the number of scientist who disagree with evolution is large.

My words are they're words.

Where is the biochemical mechanism?
Where is the observable proof that makes evolution a fact?
Why do biogenesis experiments continue to create chicken and the egg paradoxes?
How does evolution begin to defy the improbable.

Life does change. But does Life truely evolve?
The evidence says, no.

 

Will you at least agree to this bit ?

"But when the animal gets offspring it passes on his mutated genes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now if the mutation has any benefit to the offspring, however slight, it will probably stay in the genepool. Whenever something happens that changes the environment some animals that have the gene will have a slight advantage over the other, resulting in better chances of survival.. thus on average more offspring. This offspring will have the new gene, and thus the genepool will contain more and more of the new gene that gives the animals that have it an advantage."

 

(Excuse me whilst I try to channel Lenny Flank.)

So where are your facts? This large database you talk about, where is it?