Evolution couldn't be true

[LuisDantas]

Overall its not really beneficial.

You may want to refresh your understanding of the concept of natural selection right now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evolution is a specie becoming into another specie.

Not really. In fact the singular term "evolution" is misleading, as evolutionary theory involves numerous disciplines, models, theories, research fields, etc. Thus there is a lot work in e.g., evolutionary psychology that I consider largely junk and mostly pointless. There are also those in computer sciences & applied mathematics (among others) whose work on evolutionary algorithms, fitness functions, etc., while very much situated within evolutionary theory on one level, doesn't seek to explain, model, or predict anything about the evolutionary mechanisms, processes, etc., of any real living system. Some subset of those working in such fields, however, do sometimes contribute to evolutionary sciences. Research in evolutionary theory often concerns the ways in which different genetic and epigenetic properties of living systems alter over time and via interaction with local environments (which also change over time) in terms of fitness functions (including various ways to interpret these, such as the ways in which the classical conception (number of offspring) have changed to incorporate propensity & viability.

Finally, as we have increased our knowledge about the dynamics of complex, non-living systems (and the ways in which such dynamics are key for living systems as in e.g., the physics of crystalline structures which apply or even define the structure of DNA), so too has the use of evolutionary theory extended past simply the ways in which living systems change. The development of the interdisciplinary field of astrobiology has made it possible to talk about the evolution of the biosphere in ways not possible before, developments in e.g., mathematical biology or the creation of systems biology have increased the focus and ways to study the evolution of general properties/mechanisms like regulatory networks, we find more and more ways in which evolutionary theory is applied to and integrates the dynamics of non-living systems (e.g.,
Fernando, C., & Rowe, J. (2007). Natural selection in chemical evolution. Journal of theoretical biology, 247(1), 152-167; Rauchfuss, H., & Mitchell, T. N. (2008). Chemical evolution and the origin of life (pp. 85-110). Springer.; Dobretsov, N., Kolchanov, N., Rozanov, A., & Zavarzin, G. (Eds.). (2008). Biosphere origin and evolution. Springer., etc.).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Overall its not really beneficial.

It's beneficial...that's what the disagreement here is about. I've posted two sources indicating such reasons why this mutation would be a benefit. Even if you simply have the "trait"....it's still a beneficial gene mutation that allows you to be resistant to certain diseases.

 

[Skwim]

PKU, is a genetic mutation and nothing good comes from it.
I have never came across a mutation acquired in a human which improved the life of that individual.

Then you might want to crack a book or two, or even use the internet. In any case, here's one you can look up: Apolipoprotein AI Mutations.

 

[Bunyip]

I have to say that it is very hard to swallow your claim to be a biological researcher. If you were, you would know that the average person has some 150,000 minor mutations the probability that a few of them are beneficial is all but certain.

 

[Looncall]

PKU, is a genetic mutation and nothing good comes from it.
I have never came across a mutation acquired in a human which improved the life of that individual.

How about the mutation that allows some populations to use dairy oroducts?

I am sure there are many mutations you have not come across. So what?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

PKU, is a genetic mutation and nothing good comes from it.
I have never came across a mutation acquired in a human which improved the life of that individual.

Have you researched the particular topic?

Do you think that your ignorance on this topic means that the information does not exist?

Here let me help you.

Google

 

[Sapiens]

Hello folks,
I would like to present myself as a person who have studied the idea of evolution from its scientific aspect to the reasoning aspect.

You might like to, but in fact, you misunderstand more than you understand.

Evolution to the laymen is an idea that confers the relationship between the advancement of human specie to the more primitive "forefathers". If this was to be true that humans have evolved to a level that totally exceeds other species then we have to study the situation real close.

You so misunderstand that you should not be commenting on what what the idea confers to anyone.

A specific example I would like to point out is the essential vitamins that humans have to take. Vitamin C for example have to be procured from food since our bodies cannot synthesize such material. On the other hand, rats (more primitive specie), Have the ability to synthesize vitamin C.

There is no such thing as a "more primitive" species, all have had the same amount of time to evolve.

I think its about time we have to distinguish between the idea between adaptation (true) and evolution (false).

I think it is about time that you opened a dictionary and a biology text.

Evolution is a specie becoming into another specie. A cow becoming a whale. Adaptation is your avg heart rate reducing from 80 to 65 after 3 months of physical conditioning.

A "cow like" animal was in the evolutionary path of whales.

But you do not get to re-write word definitions to suit your own religious purposes. "Adaptation," has more than one meaning, but in biology (and that is the concern here) it means: "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment." Usually, without a modifier, "adaption" refers to some change brought about by evolution, in other cases it's usage usually takes a form such as "high-altitude physiologic adaptation" (which many biologists would still see, at first blush, as an evolutionary statement rather than an indication of a rise in hemoglobin).

 

[viole]

Overall its not really beneficial.

What logical reasons do you have to exclude, a-priori, the fact that a random mutation can be beneficial?

If that was never the case, then it would not be totally random to start with. Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Hello folks,

I would like to present myself as a person who have studied the idea of evolution fro--

I've seen enough. Thank you.

Please feel free to return when you're "a person who have studied" the idea of English grammar.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think its about time we have to distinguish between the idea between adaptation (true) and evolution (false).

It's time we realize that we're living in the 21st century and we shouldn't hold on to pre-Enlightenment superstitions.

 

[Valjean]

I've seen enough. Thank you.

Please feel free to return when you're "a person who have studied" the idea of English grammar.

Please let's not dismiss people just because they're ideas not presented in perfectly literate English.
English is not everyone's first language, nor was everyone raised among the upper classes or privy to an upper class education.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Please let's not dismiss people just because they're ideas not presented in perfectly literate English.

No. Let's.

I'm not asking for perfectly literate English. I'm asking for basic fluency. Never mind that the rest of the OP was garbage anyway.

English is not everyone's first language

Neither is Esperanto. However, if I were going to venture onto a forum where Esperanto was the lingua franca, I'd make damn sure to render my arguments in grammatically correct Esperanto so as to not risk the appearance of ignorance.

People who don't care enough about their arguments to dress them up in decent language are like people who show up for a job interview in raggedy-assed clothing. They might be very nice people ... but they're probably going to lose the job opportunity to the person who puts in the effort to look presentable.

nor was everyone raised among the upper classes or privy to an upper class education.

Basic English fluency is a product of an upper class education? Basic English fluency isn't available to anyone and everyone?

Two words: Spare me.

...

PS - It's "their" and not "they're." As in "their ideas."

Class dismissed.

 

[Valjean]

PS - It's "their" and not "they're." As in "their ideas."

D'oh!

You're right. See, anyone can screw up. Even we native speakers don't always proofread.

 

[pro4life]

No. Let's.

I'm not asking for perfectly literate English. I'm asking for basic fluency. Never mind that the rest of the OP was garbage anyway.



Neither is Esperanto. However, if I were going to venture onto a forum where Esperanto was the lingua franca, I'd make damn sure to render my arguments in grammatically correct Esperanto so as to not risk the appearance of ignorance.

People who don't care enough about their arguments to dress them up in decent language are like people who show up for a job interview in raggedy-assed clothing. They might be very nice people ... but they're probably going to lose the job opportunity to the person who puts in the effort to look presentable.



Basic English fluency is a product of an upper class education? Basic English fluency isn't available to anyone and everyone?

Two words: Spare me.


...

PS - It's "their" and not "they're." As in "their ideas."

Class dismissed.

Were not in a Shakespearean class. If you can't argue the idea don't try to humiliate the person. I guess this is the American way.

 

[averageJOE]

No one will take you seriously when you say:

I would like to present myself as a person who have studied the idea of evolution from its scientific aspect to the reasoning aspect.

and follow up with:

Evolution is a specie becoming into another specie. A cow becoming a whale.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hello folks,

I would like to present myself as a person who have studied the idea of evolution from its scientific aspect to the reasoning aspect.

Evolution to the laymen is an idea that confers the relationship between the advancement of human specie to the more primitive "forefathers". If this was to be true that humans have evolved to a level that totally exceeds other species then we have to study the situation real close.
A specific example I would like to point out is the essential vitamins that humans have to take. Vitamin C for example have to be procured from food since our bodies cannot synthesize such material. On the other hand, rats (more primitive specie), Have the ability to synthesize vitamin C.

I think its about time we have to distinguish between the idea between adaptation (true) and evolution (false).

Adaptation is evolution. The terms are almost inseparable. What, in your mind, is the difference between the two?

Adaptation is small change over time. Evolution is small change over time. Just over a really really really long period of time.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly! We have construed the difference between Adaptation and Evolution. Adaptation for example is when you lift weights or live on a mountain, you will be able to grow stronger muscles and build. Evolution on the other hand is a specie completely becoming into another specie.

No, from this post alone, you still don't understand evolution.

Although strength can play a part in evolution, it is not governing factor for affecting biological change.

Evolution is about adaptation or changes, at genetic level, so not that generation, but for later generations, and the changes occurred because of environmental forces or pressures, like terrain, climates, the availability of food or other resources.

The change may not be noticeable from one generation to the immediate generation succeeding it, but change may be noticeable at 100s or 1000s or tens of thousand generations.

If being strong is the only mean of survival, then why are there still butterflies around? Why didn't they go extinct shortly after they first appear?

The butterflies have survived because the descendants were able to change (genetically) to survive the environment they lived in.

The dinosaurs were the largest animals that roam the Earth for 165 million years. They all died out at the end of the Cretaceous period, about 66 million years ago. If they were larger and stronger than the mammals living in that time, then why the dinosaur didn't survive beyond 66 million years ago?

Because they couldn't adapt to changes to their environments, whatever that change may be.

Any animals that survive today is because they were able to adapt to the environment they live in, and that, my friend, doesn't mean muscle building.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Were not in a Shakespearean class. If you can't argue the idea don't try to humiliate the person. I guess this is the American way.

How wretched it is that anyone would equate good, basic English skills with Shakespeare.

You do know that Shakespeare wasn't above including fart gags in his plays, right? Shakespeare is only highbrow if you compare his stuff to .. I dunno ... Larry The Cable Guy. Or is it "Cabal Guy?"

Again ... if you show up in rags for the job interview and fail to get the job, don't blame anyone but yourself. If you're humiliated, you might ask yourself if you put your best foot forward. What's the axiom about only getting one chance to make a first impression?

...

You've failed to persuade. Can we get back to whatever the original argument was?

 

[Sapiens]

Were not in a Shakespearean class. If you can't argue the idea don't try to humiliate the person. I guess this is the American way.

All the world's a stage ... - As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII