Evolution and the origine of the species debate

Generally it's not very fast.
Chris, I believe your evolution was less a randommutation and more a particular combination of alleles becoming more useful and thus breeding pairs with the alleles became prominent.

Both are evolution but the second is much faster.

 

evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_b7Za7qF8

 

Many birth defects including that one are not genetic.


IE they can't be evolution since the parents biological makeup has little if any effect on it.

 

Soooo a random mutation?

That's exactly what a mutation is, it's a combination of genetic information that produces a different effect in the animal in question, if that effect is useful or becomes useful, pairs with that effect and the genetics to cause it become more prevalent, and the effect gets passed on.

The only difference is that this was a change in environment making an existing mutation useful, not a new mutation emerging and dominating in a static environment. It's exactly the same process however, useful traits becoming more dominant, the idea that mutations occur and useful ones dominate are the two central tenets of evolution, everything else is just application of those.

 

No alleles aren't mutation they're genetic properties of the parents that contribute to define the basic properties of the child.

It's not a mutation, it's a pair of binaries that decide whether you're X or you're Y.

An example is the sex chromosomes.
They occur in pairs like all chromosomes.
Women have 2 X chromosomes.
Men have 1 Y and 1 X.

Sperm contain a random chromosome for each pair in the entire genetic code (eye color etc)
So do eggs.

For our purposes we're only interested in the sex chromosomes.

The woman involved in reproduction can only send an X chromosome, both are identical so it doesn't really matter.
The man can randomly send an X or a Y chromosome. If the sperm which impregnates the egg has an X chromosome, the result is a female baby. If it's a Y chromosome, it is a male.

By your logic being male or female is a mutation. It's not.

 

Everything adapts though. If I go swimming every day for a week, I get a tan.
But Chris, I thought that the black butterfly was a different species?

 

No it wasnt.

And getting a tan is completely different to evolving. It's your own body adapting to the current situation. It's not evolution because it doesn't pass down to your children.

 

Hence why I called it an adaptation.

 

Adaptation is a different subject to evolution.

 

So PreDominance, since you haven't really responded to my previous reply before these guys went off on a tangent, what is it that you substitute in place of evolution to explain life and how it has arrived at its current stage?

It'd be easier to understand your denial of evolution by knowing which preconceived notions you have about evolution, other than the ones I've identified in my previous several replies.

 

A wizard did it.

 

Ahh, there's the selling point Shandy. What I believe in is a touchy subject on the internet. So to avoid humiliation (X), dramatization (X), and the end of the world (✓), I'll not start this conversation.

Also, I found a checkmark. ✓

 

He's a christian.

 

I am officially leaving this thread.

SHOOP.

 

comeon dude tell us, im sure its not as bad as telling people that you're a furry

 

fffffsk

 

Well, you've already engaged in the conversation... you went so far as to call Evolution a load. If you aren't going to tell me what you do hold to be the driving force behind life as we know it, then at least demonstrate to me how my breakdowns of your arguments are incorrect (if you hold evolution to be a fabrication, then certainly you must disagree with my breakdowns of your arguments?). If you aren't going to at least take a stand for your position, because you're worried that the Empires forum clowns will do as they usually do on a daily basis, then how can you feel that your position is a defensible one? Surely you must have confidence in it. If it's a position centered on faith or conspiracy theory, then the conversation was over before it began, because it's impossible to reason with a person that is going to appeal to any area that is beyond the natural realm. Once something is removed from the natural world, we can't do anything useful with it in discussion.

Besides, it's not like you would be the only creationist or intelligent design adherent on these forums (if one of those is indeed your position).

Oh well. I'm not interested in flaming, I'm only interested in correcting misconceptions about evolution and defending science as a tool for making discoveries and validating findings in order to reconcile events and objects with what we know about the natural world - before something can be out of this world, we have to make sure it's not in this world.

 

I stopped trying to correct people who have misconceptions about science a long time ago.