{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/23/2015 8:30:15 PM
33
I don't normally get involved in this kinda argument anymore but let's go.
Give me an example of 'observed evolution'
English
-
Penicillin resistant bacteria.
-
Still natural selection. Some were previously resistant. The ones who weren't were killed. Therefore almost of the who remained were resistant. Natural selection.
-
What the -blam!- do you think evolution is?
-
There were moths in London during the industrial revolution that were originally lighter colors. Because of the amount of smoke and black dust pumped into the environment it became advantageous for moths who had developed darker colors. The lighter color moths died from predation while the darker moths had greater success because of their ability to blend in better.
-
Which is natural selection of previously existing genetic information to change the predominant wing colour of a species. I have no problem with natural selection
-
Evolutions springs from natural selection. If you're talking about observable macro evolution, I can tell you that does not exist (takes too long). However, if natural selection is allowed to progress for thousands of generations, wouldn't the result be something completely different from the first generation? Is that not evolution?
-
No, it's not. Evolution requires beneficial mutations, not just natural selection. It's the mutations that I have the biggest problem with.
-
Define "beneficial mutations"
-
A mutation which is a gain of new information that is beneficial to the animal?
-
And the color change isn't exactly that?
-
Colour change of what?
-
The moth that was being discussed.
-
Oh, well no? That's not a mutation at all, that's the natural selection of already existing genetic information because it was advantageous.
-
That's still evolution.
-
No it's really not. The species is still the same. The animal is still the same. It's just got a different gene as the predominant one. If hitler had succeeded and we all had blonde hair and blue eyes, we would still be human
-
It is. That is by definition evolution. It'll take much longer for the animal species to physically change. Example, dinosaurs roamed the earth for 160 million years. We haven't even scratched that and we've only been actively studying evolution about 160 years. If we had seen evolution happen on an extreme level, then the current theory of evolution would be proven incorrect.
-
It's not by definition evolution. For evolution to take place you need a [i]gain of information[/i] and technically it must also be beneficial. However, it is generally accepted now that it can also be a loss of information that is beneficial. Here, there is no gain or loss of any description.
-
Tell me what you would consider a gain in information.
-
Modificato da My Name Is John: 5/6/2015 6:23:20 PMA mutation where DNA is changed and new information is created or where information is added
-
What do you mean "new" DNA. DNA is constantly being replicated in your body. Could you give an example?
-
Modificato da My Name Is John: 5/6/2015 6:23:42 PMAh sorry, that new wasn't meant to be there
-
What would you consider an act of evolution? And you could you give an example?
-
Are you asking me or are you telling me?
-
Both. I was stating what my knowledge of it is and implying a question of what your understanding of it is.
-
Frankly, I've never heard of a beneficial mutation. I always thought they were just the random variations in the nucleotide composition of DNA/RNA. I think this idea that evolution means an organism can only become more advanced and complex is misguided. I don't know if that's what you're thinking, but it seems to me you believe evolution is "progress" as in more beneficial traits are gained and the organism gains a competitive advantage over others which in turn boosts its ranking in the hierarchy of biological organization. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't believe that's the way it works. There's actually a very interesting show on Netflix called "Your Inner Fish" and I highly recommend it. It shows how anatomical characteristics of humans are derived from aquatic and reptilian ancestors and how we are really just recycled parts and DNA from long ago (with some contemporary changes, of course)
