Which religion are you?

yes most mutations are bad, but some are good.(actually, most genetic mutations are harmless and dont do anything, as most DNA is unused)

Nature sorts this out fairly easily: animals have to compete to reproduce. So, any animal with a bad mutation would either die early, or be unable to reprocude because the opposite gender would choose a better mate. With sheep, the shorter legs wouldn't be physically fit to compete with it's larger competitors. Flys would be unable to fly correctly, so the female would refuse to mate with him, if its the female, then the male would try to find a better mate. So, the bad mutation dies off.

Seedless plants: simple, they dont exist in the wild for that very reason. The only seedless plants are those created by people. For example, the seedless banana(Cavendish) only survives due to its ability of the roots to be cut into pieces, and each piece can create a new tree. Thus, each tree is genetically identical, and if one gets a fatal disease, they can all get it. This is not evolution/natural selection.

Also, with oranges, grafting works well with those. Most citrus plants will accept parts of other citrus plants, so you can take the branch of one plant, and attach it to another. This results in one plant able to have oranges, lemons, and limes growing from it. So if they do have a seedless orange, they would just need to cut off some branches, and attach it to a new tree. When the branch is successfully grafted and grows, they can cut off any new branches from it and reattach them to another tree. So, any seedless citrus fruits created can survive by living off of another host citrus plant. This only works as long as there are people to keep trimming off new parts to add to other plants, so again, this is human's work, not natural evolution.

reproduce faster than normal? I don't see how eating more plants and less bugs would do that. They dont reproduce faster, what happened is because their diet changed to meet the available food on the new island, thier digestive system changed to be able to process the food better. This only occured in the relocated population, and has no signs of developing in the native population.

 

I can' think of anything for i'm young and can't keep all things that disprove evolution in my head so when not knowing use internet

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

also: can you really prove anything like does the computer that im typing on exist?

 

Rofl Hayden, you dont believe in Evolution?

Are you American by chance? I swear if you came to Europe and said that you would be the laughing stock for weeks. , i know you're young... But honestly, its best to try and learn these things now than later on in life.

 

why should i belive in evolution?

And yes im a American

my memory isn't very good

 

that website doesnt work for me. (get the Internet Explorer cannot display site error)

I'm American, but I believe in Evolution. Even as a kid, I never understood that 'God made the World in 7 Days" stuff. I personally find it embarassing that most Americans truely belive in Creationism, it requires no intellegence and proves how bad our education system is.

Without science, we'd still believe that the world is the center of the universe and disease is God's punishment for your sins.

 

For starters Hayden, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution before even commenting or pretending to understand evolution!

Im not sure if i should honestly get into 4th gear debate mode here, but yeah - understanding before debate good sir.

 

I know for sure one thing.
that Darwin himself said that if the cell structure of a orginism was slightly more complicated his thory would collapse, bear in mind this was before we knew that cell orginism were complicated so he himself proved that evolution is fake.

Also: could i just read the start for that is way too long.

 

Thats because he based his assumtions on what science knew at the time. Science knows a lot more about cells and how they work nowadays than they did about 150 years ago.

I've even seen computer simulations showing how the parts of the cell look and work when creating proteins and duplicating DNA.

Also, it's hard to agree with an arguement when the person says they are unable to read an article about it.

 

No, Darwin did not disprove evolution. (cant believe i had to say that )

There is currently only one real credible (as credible as the creationist beliefs are silly that is..) argument against evolution and that is the argument of improbability, it states that complex things could not have come about by chance, of which the majority of them consider 'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the absence of deliberate design'. This argument shows their idea that for some reason improbability = evidence of intelligent design. Which ofc it is not.

What creationists need to understand is that design is not the only alternative to chance and the teaches of Darwin in respect to biological improbability give evidence that natural selection is indeed a better alternative. (Although, i would take note that the chance of creationists looking into and understanding natural selection are rather low)

But yean, Hayden thats a brief summary of what you could argue, and how its refuted by understanding of natural selection ;D. In essence, i do not feel capable of going into a full lecture on how natural selection tackles improbability, but if you are truely interested i suggest researching it. Although, at your age i wouldnt care , just make sure you question EVERYTHING you're told in terms of beliefs, critical thinking sir!

 

I don't really believe in evolution because some of the theories for it don't make sense to me. Such as why are the only ones to evolve to this intelligent state when all the other species have been around for so long? Why havn't other apes and stuff evolved with us? What makes us so special? They say its because we ate meat and helped our brains grow but tons of other species eat meat too. There are other things as well, just can't remember them all right now.

 

Pancake chief, they dont make sense to you because you have not fully researched or learned the theory. I suggest you read the wikipedia link and my above post.

In short, your argument suggests that you are unsure of the reason for mankinds rise to intelligence over other beings?

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor species. Humans did not evolve from modern day chimpanzees or gorillas.

Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. Our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this ---->split of the two lineages. <---- very important there. That split is why.

We share a comman ancestor, and through natural selection, they went one way and we went the other.
I gotta go bed now, my head hurts.

 

We have a stronger brain, that is why we have better technology than other animals.

"Why aren't other apes evolved with us"

Just because our ancestors changed to get better in one area, that doesn't mean thier relatives did the same. We became smarter, while other apes are stronger than we are. For example, an average Gorilla would be able to beat an average human in terms of physical strength. Our ancestors adapted a larger brain to compensate for a weaker physical strength, creating weapons like spears(mainly created from pointed sticks).

It depends on your idea of evolution. If its mental strength, then we are ahead, if its physical, then humans are actually one of the least evolved, as we are not as strong, agile, or fast as most other apes.

 

yeah, I agree. Each species has something they use to their advantage. If we were in the wild w/o our technology most of us would not survive very well. I mean, out teeth are dull and our nails are weak. Our muscles don't get bulgy unless we work really really hard and repeatedly. Other animals are built to be that way, we're not. you could actually argue humans are an extremely fragile species. There are not many climates we can survive in year round because of the snow or extreme heat. We don't hibernate, or have thick layers of fur, etc. We're not all that well adapt to the wild anymore. Though, I suppose thqat could have come from being so cut off from nature, as well.

 

Of course it's because of the technology/science we are that way (weak). And it's only going to be worse

 

The question still remains though, why hasn't ANY other species on Earth go the evolutionary path of brains like we humans did? I mean they are billions and billions of other species on this planet you would think even just one of them would go our path as well. Why were we the only ones?

I mean many other species go similar evolutionary paths as they get more strength or physical adaptations to help survive, such as different species of big cats like tigers and leopards,etc.

 

Because they didn't have the social pressure.

All we needed was one different trait, the 'land greed' trait if you will. We evolved the 'need' to have more land, more leaves, more shinies that the dude next to us. So, we decided to take it. Guy number 2 devised ways to keep it/take it back. Thus, you have a wooden club arms race. As our creativity with weapons grew, so did our average intelligence. Soon we made the connection that we could use these clubs to beat our prey into submission. We attained omnivorism. From there, with the added protein meat afforded us, we grew in strength, evolved more complex brain structures, started actually ASKING, started using the environment and what's more, shaping it to our needs. From there, it was an easy leap to true sentience (Neolithic Revolution f^$@ yeah!).

 

Pancake what is the general argument against evolution? The primary one I hear is how unlikely it is for an inteligent being to evolve at all, so if you believe that how can argue that it is strange that there is only one intelligent species amongst billions when you yourself are saying the odds of being were we are now are less than 1 in a trillion?

Right there is a potential logical counter argument based on numbers, as for the evolutionary reason, here are a couple. The set of circumstances that would make tool wielding intelligence on the scale humans use is very, very rare. Where as the circumstances that reward greater brute strength were in fact quite common until recently when said animals would have to deal with tool wielding beings (that is assuming humans are involved, if you talking about a situation without humans brute strength is still quite valuable). Also, there was atleast one other species that came very close to our level of intelligence we call them neaderthals (in fact they had larger brains than us but they were of different design), ironicly one of the reasons they are no longer around is because humans helped kill them off. I would guess this also would hold true for any other species anywhere close to our intelligence in the past, the idea of natural selection and survival of the fitest is that the best equiped animal sticks around to hold its niche, we just happened to be that animal.

EDIT: This post was crafted before Fenix posted so I apologize for any overlap.

 

Thats not what I meant Lord Kerywn I meant that there should be a lot more that went our route of evolution considering the number of species that are out there on Earth and was just asking why they didn't and why we were the only ones with that behavior etc.

 

I just explained it.

By random chance, they didn't develop 'greed'

 

Thats not what I'm asking though, I'm asking why they didn't develop it by random chance and why some how we did. Not how it came to be but why they think thats how it came to by or why it came to be.

It's hard to explain what im trying to say.