Evolution - A serious question.

[The-Joker]

There is no talking to you flat earthers.

From a scientific perspective, the desert isn't flat... so your logic is flawed.

 

[PearlWatson]

Well you've heard wrong

Desert in this tense isn't plural, therefore "does" is the proper conjugation.

You gotta get your game up, I'm schooling you in grammar and logic.

Ain't you a smarty pants. LOL!

 

[PearlWatson]

From a scientific perspective, the desert isn't flat... so your logic is flawed.

You mean to tell me that the desert ain't a microflatearth like you claimed? How do they get them cars going so fast out there then? Must be the salt.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I'm the one who initially asked you questions and I read your long answers. I'm sorry that my inquires are tiresome for you and that you don't want to talk about the subject of evolution.

Funny how you take shots at me for "not wanting to preach" and then ignore a relevant question that I've asked three times now. Just proves you have no good answer.

 

[PearlWatson]

Funny how you take shots at me for "not wanting to preach" and then ignore a relevant question that I've asked three times now. Just proves you have no good answer.

Sorry, I didn't think the question was relevant to evolution. Is it?

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Yes it is. Your viewpoint is based on creation myths told in a religious book. So I would say it's very relevant to ask why that book should be considered authoritative over other religious texts.

 

[One Brow]

Why did you and many others argue that random mutation (whether subtle or wild) is an essential part of evolution if it isn't?

Random mutation (subtle) is a part. Random mutation (wild) results in death without progeny.

Are you trying to pretend that natural selection doesn't = survival of the fittest?

No pretense necessary.

 

[One Brow]

But we don't so now can we start talking about the real theory of evolution that claims that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms by random mutation and natural selection?

Because this "real theory of evolution" is a figment of your imagination. At best, you have given a description so incomplete it can be nothing but misleading and inaccurate.

 

[One Brow]

Please define natural selection if you don't like my definition.

Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

[One Brow]

... the trick for evolutionists is being able to show how random mutation creates a new attribute that leads to a new species.

Since the theory of evolution does not say, "random mutation creates a new attribute that leads to a new species", it would indeed be a trick.

 

[One Brow]

The real question that evolutionists can't answer is where the hell the first bird came from.

Since the Theory of Evolution does not have a concept of "the first bird", what is there to explain?

 

[TheItinerantSon]

I've always thought that it was a strategic blunder, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition for the Dawkins crowd to be so obsessed with making sure that everyone believes in evolution. So I've never been particularly fond of these types of debates. In fact I really don't care if the Louisiana govt or the kansas govt decides to stop teaching evolution in schools paid for by the louisiana or kansas govts.

That said, I do fundamentally believe in evolution. I am a biologist (a cancer biologist) in training. And I can tell you that I believe natural selection explains not just what we see in the biological world, but (by memes if not genes) also much of what we see in the human world.

---

Some people have seemed to argue that it doesn't make sense that enough mutations could accumulate to generate a new trait. And I will admit that its a hard concept to lay your head around.

But I think it can be helpful to think about developmental biology. You may remember in your high school biology textbooks that dramatically different species look very similar at certain stages of development. See the image below

Thats because during embryogenesis, you have these master regulatory genes called HOX genes that direct programs of development. Slight mutations in these genes have ripple effects that can cause dramatically different physical outcomes.

Anecdotal evidence of a sped up version of this comes from the Siberian Farm-Fox experiment.

Which you can read about briefly here

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/science/new-breed-of-fox-as-tame-as-a-pussycat.html

or in-depth here

https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1

or watch a youtube video about here (10 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO1qv-p97G0&feature=related