Teach "Evolution," Not Darwinian Evolution

But WHY?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They did. The most I could find in a brief search was this:

The positioning of the genes on the Tetraodon chromosomes has made it possible, for the first time, to compare the chromosomal organization of the genomes of mammals and fish, two lineages in which the common ancestor lived in the Paleozoic era, about 450 million years ago.

The platypus is a unique form of mammal. The goldfish is obviously descended from the fish family, which branched off from the common ancestor of fish and mammals before they evolved to resemble the finned fish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because a virus would be content being a virus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Through variation in a population leading to differential survival rates, leading to what you call "morphing", over time.

This can be observed in the space of a year or two among lizard and bird populations on small islands.

 

AND?

 

What if the environment changed and a variation one of the viruses had persisted while those without that variation died off? With enough changing environmental pressures and proliferation of new variations that meet those changes, that virus is no longer a virus.

 

It doesn't matter how impossible something seems. If reality says its true... then it's true.

 

...thus providing experimental proof of natural selection.

 

I only need to prove evolution exist. duh....

You want god behind everything, you prove god.

I want life explained by evolution, I prove evolution.

so shut it peabrain.

 

the thing we must ask is:
is it possible, given what we know of chemistry, for organisms to form?
i think everyone will agree that is indeed possible.
the next question becomes:
is that what really happened?
to this very day science has been unable to prove organisms formed from nothing.

 

Because science says they formed from something.

 

you understand what i mean spurious.
i posed the following question to skinwalker, it pissed him off so bad he told me to shut the fuck up.

suppose your child was on trial for murder.
the prosecution devised a method whereby your child was guilty.
the method he proposed could never be proved.
would you accept that method and believe your child was guilty?

 

You say that a process "lived" 4 billion years, making "choices," I think you need to be on the sci fi board.

 

It was essentially a passive process, not an active one as you conceive your God.

 

Ah, the ol' passive process, kinda' like "panspermia?" I love all these cop out terms you guys come up with.

 

Hmmm, like "God"? You are over your head. Didn't Dartmouth require courses in biology?

 

and became human? why not just a stronger virus???? It's is just not possible, you could add all the zero's to the timeframe you like, sorry.

 

More like a bacteria, which is a kind of cell. You forget that a human is made of a collection of cells.

 

Hey spidergoat, do you know the definition of syngameon?

 

The human body is an amalgam of bacteria cells? Can we see your paper on that in Nature?