Evolution, Christian Darwin's Theory, Now Proven Wrong

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Evolution is boring. Darwin, like God and Nietzsche, is dead. If where we came from doesn't have a direct impact on where we're going, I find dwelling on it purely academic.

I assume you would agree that the past can't not have an impact on the future.

Much of our behaviour, on either end of the sliding scale of desirability, are evolutionary traits that we've developed through the natural selection of whatever the rules of The Game* looked like at the time of development.
For example, it's not that we value social bonding plainly because it's good, it's that we experience social bonding as being good because the central nervous system is conditioned by a long history of it being an effective survival strategy for us.

So with more of the atheists struggling to seem relevant on science as they chime in on some Christian's now proven wrong by fossil theory of evolution...

I wonder if any of the evolution believers evolved more eyeballs, to view their video game enemies better, sitting in front of their computers for 10 hours a day.

I wonder when computer nerds everywhere will evolve more eyeballs, and more fingers to type away their lives.

"Evolution, it just happens, over time, science"

Ugh... the things people will do to bandwagon their lives away, to seem intelligent.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I do agree with that, yes. I guess I was speaking purely about biological evolution vs creationism. I just find it a super fucking boring topic. Bit like, y'know, flat-earth vs round earth. I don't engage in that sort of idiocy either.

It's like mosquito bites. You probably shouldn't be scratching them but sometimes they're just so fucking annoying, you know?

"

What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.

What you seem to think it is:
A new mutation suddenly pops out in a child or an adult being.

What it really is:
A baby is born slightly different. If the difference is positive, it is more likely to have children. If not, then it is less likely to have children.

Congratulations, you just conflated evolution with heredity.

Hint: not actually the same thing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.

What you seem to think it is:
A new mutation suddenly pops out in a child or an adult being.

What it really is:
A baby is born slightly different. If the difference is positive, it is more likely to have children. If not, then it is less likely to have children.

Congratulations, you just conflated evolution with heredity.

Hint: not actually the same thing.

Wrong, he is spot on.

Heredity is simply the passing on of genes. This is the offcial description of the word: "
the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another."

A mutation is the opposite, it's the sudden apparition of a physical or mental characteristic that wasn't present in the previous generation.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

What you are saying shows that you have a bad understanding about what the theory of evolution is.

What you seem to think it is:
A new mutation suddenly pops out in a child or an adult being.

What it really is:
A baby is born slightly different. If the difference is positive, it is more likely to have children. If not, then it is less likely to have children.

Congratulations, you just conflated evolution with heredity.

Hint: not actually the same thing.

Wrong, he is spot on.

Heredity is simply the passing on of genes. This is the offcial description of the word: "
the passing on of physical or mental characteristics genetically from one generation to another."

A mutation is the opposite, it's the sudden apparition of a physical or mental characteristic that wasn't present in the previous generation.

Even then he would be conflating evolution and mutation. These also aren't the same thing.

In the context of genetics, evolution is the formation of multiple species from a single species. The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species. Your task is NOT to explain how the best genes appear suddenly and then are passed on to members of the same species. Your task is to explain how mutations diverge so far from the main species that at some point fucking another descendant of a common ancestor no longer fucking works.

That's a lot fucking bigger than mutation.

evolution and mutation isn't the same, you are correct. However, they are very closely related.

Evolution (overall) is the process in which mutations appear in newborns. It includes failed mutations because it's a process.

Evolution (of a species) is the process in which mutations are kept beyond the first individual and of which become an hereditary trait.


Evolutions cannot happen without mutations, mutations can happen without evolution occurring.


And no, "The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species." is absolutely wrong unless you go extremely wide with "species" and really meant "family". Best example is a horse and a donkey, which are two very different species, can mate together and make mules/hinnies.


Enough mutations in the DNA means that eventually the DNA of two creature that ended up as different species but still share a common ancestor become incompatible. It's no different than looking at the DNA of a dog and then looking at the DNA of a whale and seeing why it doesn't work.3

"

faerwin wrote:

And no, "The defining trait of a species is the INABILITY to reproduce with members of a different species." is absolutely wrong unless you go extremely wide with "species" and really meant "family". Best example is a horse and a donkey, which are two very different species, can mate together and make mules/hinnies.

Well fuck me, it looks like you're correct. I still think it's correct to say different species have extreme difficulty producing fertile offspring, but reading up on mule fertility shows that female mules have successfully mated with horses and donkeys, but not other mules (as all male mules so far have been impotent).

Yes, it's true that most extra-species breeding result in infertile infants. I didn't know about female mules being able to breed successfully, I thought they were all infertile.