Evolution

Addressing some misconceptions and explaining some of the basics.


Best DNA Test Related Blogs

    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

    25 Responses to “Evolution”

    1. TheWesmaister Says:

      @SunnyLovetts Please read books and study before making such an stupid and pointless comment.

    2. TheWesmaister Says:

      @fmilluminatus Natural seluction and Artificial Selection are two diferents things.

    3. Casshyr Says:

      @fmilluminatus “CANNOT select from traits that don’t ALREADY exist in a species” => not entirely true. If a mutation is located near another mutation that is being selected for, this mutation will also be selected simply because of its close proximity to the one that’s undergoing positive selection. Then later on this mutation then may become positively selected if it, along with other variants, encode for a phenotype significant enough to confer an advantage.

    4. Casshyr Says:

      @fmilluminatus “It’s been clearly demonstrated that mutations are not persistent and ordered enough to collectively create new species” => ok, first of, who claimed it? Is this within a peer-reviewed academic journals? Second, no, new species have indeed been observed (under the classical definition of isolation of sexual reproduction). See London underground mosquitoes as an example.

    5. Casshyr Says:

      @fmilluminatus “New species arose almost instantaneously in several distinct “explosions” of diversity” => i assume this might be some reference to Cambrian explosion. Do you know how long this “explosion” is? When an evolutionist uses the word “instantaneous”, do you know how long that usually means? I’l give you a hint: it’s longer than what young earth creationists believe the age of Earth is. It’s longer than the entire known existence of human civilization.

    6. Casshyr Says:

      @fmilluminatus “or how a new letter is chosen is not selective for order. A proper example would not only randomize the word, but randomize the selection of the word” => occurrences of mutation is not random in the sense you think. If you know any physics, you’ll know that we live in a deterministic world and nothing is random. And also, if you plot rate of occurrences of mutations across the genome, it is not uniformly distributed like what you would expect if under a random model.

    7. yamnjam Says:

      Consider me an ignorant, dumb person. Can anyone explain how evolution developed male and female species? Seriously, every chart I’ve ever seen shows like an amoeba, then plankton, then a fish, then a walking fish, to a lizard, to a dinosaur, to birds…etc. Did they have sex w/themselves, or did evolution provide the male/female solution to continuation spontaneously also? Explain it as if I’m in 1st grade, and not some tale that is “morphing”. Countless male and female species. Please do tell.

    8. sykeo123 Says:

      @yamnjam
      “Did they have sex w/themselves”
      never heard of asexual reproduction?

    9. Maindrian5 Says:

      There is more evidence proving accounts of the Bible in all fields of science than evidence supporting evolution. There is substantial scientific evidence disproving evolution.

      Its okay to be angry. I felt the same way too, but after studying the archeological, biological, historical, and even astronomical evidence it would take more faith to believe in evolution than God. Don’t let your pride and the devil’s veil over science keep you from the truth. God bless.

    10. Casshyr Says:

      @yamnjam Good question. First, you need to understand nothing is 100% certain right now. We can never be fully certain when it comes to the past. Also, the evolution of sex isn’t fully understood yet. We have a good idea, but there remains gaps of knowledge to fill in. This however doesn’t mean “God did it”. We can only claim “God did it” when we first prove existence of God, and also that God was indeed involved. (cont)

    11. Casshyr Says:

      @yamnjam The first sexual reproduction is theorized to occur in simple single-celled organisms. We see this with yeast. Do you know that yeast can carry out sexual reproduction? Under normal circumstance, yeast reproduce by binary division. But when environment nutrient is rich, yeast undergoes changes to become either a “male” or “female”, and they will exchange genetic material with another yeast of the opposite “gender”. This increases genetic diversity, which is good for survival.

    12. Casshyr Says:

      @yamnjam So important thing to take away is that the first organisms on Earth capable of carrying out sexual reproduction is NOT dependent on only sexual reproduction. Creationists like to argue “if there is a first male, then that male must also find a female to reproduce, and the statistical chance of having that is slim”. That’s wrong. That first “male” isn’t dependent to find another female to mate, it can carry out bacterial-like replication, just like the yeast example i show u.

    13. Casshyr Says:

      @yamnjam At this point u may ask “why can’t humans replicate by themselves without sex?” This is because we have SPECIALIZE. Just like anything in life, evolution goes from generalization -> to specialization. Sex is good for us in terms of survival because it increases genetic diversity. Besides, our body has evolved beyond what can be replicate efficiently if done via a bacterial fission.

    14. SuperRighteous7 Says:

      If you go back far enough in the evolutionary timeline, people came from inanimate matter, people came from rocks. Now there are many rocks on this earth that have been around for along time, and I don’t think I’ve seen any evolve into anything that evolves into something that might later evolve into a human being, do you realize how much time it would take for this to happen?

    15. palerider1775 Says:

      @SuperRighteous7 “People came from rocks”? I’ve never seen this statement made anywhere but in fairy tale books. Where are you getting your information from?

    16. Casshyr Says:

      @SuperRighteous7 “people came from rocks.” => lmao no. Try again. Look up RNA world. Do you even know what RNA is btw? Lets test your understanding. Define RNA for me, and tell me what are some characteristics of RNA that lead scientists to theorize the RNA -world theory. You don’t have to believe in evolution theory but you should at least understand it first before you reject it.

    17. MrMaster90 Says:

      @SuperRighteous7 I’m sure you mean LIFE came from rocks, not people, and life didn’t come from rocks but from an organic soup saturating prebiotic Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. I’d suggest reading about abiogenesis and the natural history of life on Earth. And remember that rocks are inorganic and don’t reproduce; they have nothing to do with evolution.

    18. CryoKatana97 Says:

      @SuperRighteous7 :

      You’re an idiot

      People don’t come from inanimate matter.

      Correct me if I’m mistaken but I do believe the bible tells that people are created from mud and spit from God = Inanimate matter. Which leads to the case that you are debating your own beliefs with your own fucking pathetic little brain.

      Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, which means you didn’t took the time to watch the video, do yourself a favor and go troll somewhere else please

    19. iSOisoleucine Says:

      @SuperRighteous7 Appeal to ignorance

    20. thejewishagnostic Says:

      so it took millions of years for us to come from monkeys, monkeys don’t live for millions of years????
      did i just diprove evolution =) ??????????

    21. Barrelbomba Says:

      @thejewishagnostic Not quite. We evolved as a population of APES, our genes mutated every generation and eventually, over millions of years, we get to what is recognisable as a human.
      We don’t evolve in one giant leap from one generation, I.e two parents were apes and their offspring were humans, we had loads of little jumps to get humans over millions of years

    22. Z3ALOT08 Says:

      To quote Carl Sagan, “Evolution is a fact, not a theory.”

    23. Casshyr Says:

      @thejewishagnostic you are kidding right? Evolution doesn’t act on individuals, it acts on populations across generations. And no we didn’t come from monkeys. Monkeys is a term for MODERN non-human primates. We share the same ancestor with monkeys.

    24. thejewishagnostic Says:

      @Casshyr
      i was joking

    25. thejewishagnostic Says:

      @Z3ALOT08
      to quote 1,000,000 % of smart people the torah is fact

    Leave a Reply

    CommentLuv Enabled

    This site uses KeywordLuv. Enter YourName@YourKeywords in the Name field to take advantage.

    Powered by Yahoo! Answers