Not gonna lie, a lot of what you say is false. Off the complete top of my head, gravity is a law, not a theory. Micro-evolution is basically just natural selection. And I think Darwin himself spoke out against the actual theory of evolution later in his life, but I'm not entirely sure.
English
-
[quote]Not gonna lie[/quote] you already failed.
-
Doesn't matter what Darwin said. He was just one man.
-
Gravity isn't a law. It's a theory under the theory of relativityz
-
Edited by Gorillapants: 4/22/2015 11:41:12 PMEven if Darwin did speak out against evolution, that doesn't change the fact that we have proof for it.
-
No you dont
-
Yes we do. Nice necrobump.
-
[quote]I'm not entirely sure.[/quote]obviously.
-
You should try reading up on things before you speak on it. Gravity has both a law and a scientific theory. Natural selection is not evolution. Whether its micro or macro, which only describes the time. Natural selection is the mechanism that causes evolution. What Darwin said is irrelevant.
-
[quote]You should try reading up on things before you speak on it. Gravity has both a law and a scientific theory. Natural selection is not evolution. Whether its micro or macro, which only describes the time. Natural selection is the mechanism that causes evolution. What Darwin said is irrelevant.[/quote] Natural selection cannot be THE mechanism that causes evolution. Evolution REQUIRES that information is CHANGED otherwise no new species would come about. Natural selection can only select from information available in the gene pool. MUTATIONS Is the ONLY mechanism that can change a species into another.
-
Mutation is not the only mechanism of evolution
-
[quote]Mutation is not the only mechanism of evolution[/quote] Then name them.
-
On the off chance you're still listening, I'll bite. Genetic exchange Mutation Geographic isolation Just to name a couple.
-
My argument is new information must be introduced in order for an animal to change into another. A whale will not grow an utter unless its genetic code tells it to. Isolating whales will not make them grow utters.
-
Darwin's finches, the ultimate go-to example for evolution, are the result of geographic isolation.
-
[quote]Darwin's finches, the ultimate go-to example for evolution, are the result of geographic isolation.[/quote] Did the finches turn into eagles? Or did they stay finches? No one argues a beak can change length by a millimeter within a genetic pool.
-
So? The finches evolved.
-
Bacteria are often studied by geneticist because they reproduce extremely fast. They can study how bacteria "evolve". Guess what? Bacteria always produce bacteria.....never flies. Small variations within a species are not disputed by anyone. Whales to cows is.
-
Stop -blam!-ing saying whales to cows. That's not a thing and I don't know where you're getting that from. The amount of time it would take to for a new species to arise within a genus is longer than we have had time to study. Flies and bacteria are in separate [i]kingdoms[/i], as far apart as they could possibly be. You're only demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject.
-
[quote]Stop -blam!-ing saying whales to cows. That's not a thing and I don't know where you're getting that from. The amount of time it would take to for a new species to arise within a genus is longer than we have had time to study. Flies and bacteria are in separate [i]kingdoms[/i], as far apart as they could possibly be. You're only demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject.[/quote] So you are saying as long as we have enough time anything can happen. Even though we can't test it in a laboratory. Because we don't have not enough time to watch it change.
-
That's why we look at the fossil record. Fossils allow us to safely extrapolate on what we can observe in laboratories.
-
[quote]That's why we look at the fossil record. Fossils allow us to safely extrapolate on what we can observe in laboratories.[/quote] I like that word extrapolate. What you are saying is we can "theorize" "paint a story" on how it may have happened. Have you ever thought about the fact that when we dig up a fossil all you really know is that the animal lived and died. Nothing tells you it turned into a different kind of animal. You don't even know it had offspring. Everything else is "extrapolated".....love that word.
-
We can compare its skeletal structure to those of other animals. Why do whales have finger bones? They used to have fingers. Why do humans have tail bones? They used to have tails. And that's just from looking at it. You would be surprised what we can learn from fossils.
-
Do you understand how many muscles are attached to your tail bone? Try removing it and you will see why you have it. Many things have been considered vestigual and then scientist figure out that they really have a purpose. Whales have floating bones back by there pelvic area that for years scientists said were left over from their evolution. Then they realized they were necessary in whale reproduction.
-
You're assuming the tailbone exists because the muscles exist around it, when the muscles exist around it because the tailbone exists. We need our tailbones because we evolved with them. You are literally trying to argue against evolution using evidence that supports evolution.
-
Not only that, why would we lose a tail. I can think of many reasons why a tail would be beneficial and none that would make it obsolete. Why would natural selection select the animal without a tail? Just think of how handy it would be when your hands are full.