Theory of evolution in practice

The Republican Party does not stand for Social Darwinism either.

 

I guess you missed the part about the subjective value of morals.

 

You must have been asleep since Eisenhower. You seem to have missed out on that whole "takers and makers" lunacy.

 

Please explain it to me then.

 

Is it even dinosaurs to birds at all? Surely they were separate lineages for quite a long while even when the dinosaurs were still around, considering the ancient transitional fossils that have been found, as well as the sheer differences between, say, a T-rex and any modern bird. I just want to avoid confusion here. Birds and T-rex obviously share ancestry, but I don't think any tiny-armed T-rexes ever went on to become birds.

 

1. Sharks have not remained "unchanged"; there have been some relatively significant changes throughout the ages.

2. The mutations are indeed random, it's just that selection does not favor significant changes in sharks because hydrodynamics is exactly the same as it has always been, and thus certain body shapes are maintained because they always go fast in water.

3. Morphology may be the same, but we don't know what sort of biochemical changes have changed. After all, dissolved oxygen levels have changed in the ocean, pH has changed, and a bunch of other such changes in ocean chemistry have occurred, all of which would require changes to the body chemistry of those sharks. Such changes would be rather dramatic, but would be unnoticeable in the fossil record.

 

There's very strong evidence that it is.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/

Probably.

LOL, "homosexual recruitment" is seriously being advanced here. It's not the 1980s; try reading about some of the latest developments in the past 30 years.

 

An outside supply of energy allows for local decreases in entropy. The earth has a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing big outside energy source.

- - - Updated - - -

No, because, in males, at least, homosexuality is associated with genes in females that increase fertility. Thus, some males may lose some fertility, but it is gained in women (and other males in the family will not be homosexual and thus can still reproduce).

 

Credit where it's due. When you're right, you're right.

 

No, there's no evidence that this nonsense has any basis in reality.

 

Nope we call it human rights.
We are not animals you know.

 

You'd think that during the four years Blackrook has spent on this forum, he'd at least pick up the general idea of what he's been arguing against.

Evolution states that natural selection has happened, not that it was a pretty picture when it did, just as most agree that the holocaust was despicable, but that doesn't mean we should deny it happened, right?

I have heard it argued that we should study evolution closer because it helps us understand and thus avoid social Darwinism.

 

Sharks have by and large remained unchanged for 400 million years...they do not evolve significantly in their complexity. Many organisms share this trait...crocodiles, some bactteria...the alligtor gar found here in the Mid-West...essentially a pre-historic fish that has not evolved in complexity.

Mutagenesis does indeed occur preferentially on the chromasomal level...a mutation may occur randomly of course for a myriad of causes, but on the chromosomal level, there are hotspots on the DNA which favor mutational variances...it is localized in other words, on the chemical level.

 

In theory yes, but also, in theory, no.

Thing is, that

-no creo has any legit argument against ToE (nor does anyone else)
-all arguments they make are strawmen, distortions, misrepresentations, or fabrications.
-no creo will ever admit to being wrong on any idea they put forward on
why ToE is wrong.

On that last point, IF he, or any creo were to learn anything about ToE
it would involve admitting they got something wrong, and, possibly worse,
move them toward admitting that there is no known flaw in the theory...
slippery slope there!

 

You is sounding a bit like a creo here, man.

You are aware, right, that many dinosaurs were quite small, and a lot of good fossils showing feathers on dinosaurs have been found?

 

Interesting. The way the world actually and observably works out there in
nature is, the weak die and the strong survive. The ToE, you know, merely describes what is observed.

There is no "should' to ToE, dont make things up.

FACT is, lions tear up lambs, fish swallow eachother whole, and there is all manner of carnage going on out there. You are offended by the theory that describes it, but not by the fact?

By being offended by the immorality of a theory (weird concept) you
get out of facing the immorality of a god who'd set it up so babies
are eaten by hyaenas just coz of a young couple eating some fruit?

 

This may be a perfect example of how religion can close the mind to new perspectives. Being that my thoughts are not bound to a set if ideas that must hold true no matter the cost my mind is free to truly contemplate and question.

I won't remember this perfectly but one of the several theories I've heard on this subject starts back at the beginning of our tribal existence. We know that women were far and few between for the most part and that clearly their protection was of the utmost importance for any group’s survival. We also know that the alpha male would be the one to mate with the females and they would also be the one to lead the hunting parties. So if the alpha male is out hunting who is protecting the women and kids? At the earliest stages of our existence everyone had a role to play in their various groups, if you didn't it meant you were expendable or useless. Who better to leave with the females then the males not interested in her? You want the women and kids to have protection but you also don't want them to be mated with by a lesser male. In that scenario the gay gene is passed on in the children being watched by the "gay uncle" which is what the theory is called I believe.

There is another one called the sneaky (*)(*)(*)(*)er theory (gotta love the name of that one) in which the males being left behind are not actually gay but rather bi-sexual in which case they would secretly mate with the women passing on the gay gene that way.

Homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom but mostly in social species. "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

I’m not saying that either of these theories are facts but can you look into the earliest stages of human existence, given the nature of the time and place they existed in, knowing that in many tribes they may have only had one or two women and still think that a better explanation for homosexuality than those I mentioned above is simply that they were all molested and then chose to be gay?

 

Yes. That's why I want to avoid anyone thinking that scientists are claiming that T-rex evolved into a bird. It's no more true, and would be a greater leap, than a modern chimp becoming human. They may be close to us, but they're our contemporaries nonetheless, not our ancestors.

 

Oh, you know, I think we are all a mixture. Shades of g(r)ay.

Free of societal inhibitions, it would come out a lot more.

 

As I said they are just ideas and the point of posting them to BR is to show that it doesn't take much to at least understand how it's possible if not for the theistic perspective that prevents him from thinking outside of his box.

 

Yeah I think that is why we here some theists ask why is it we don't see chimps turning into humans....lol I can't even type it without laughing a little.

 

Weirdly, the goddists are always saying that its them others who cant think outside of their box.

- - - Updated - - -

It is really just a condensed example of every argument they have ever put forward. Most of the others take too long to express, to be funny.

 

Right but the argument is false on its face. It goes back to the argument about faith in science. We know we don't know everything and that anything we do know can change. Not much of a box there.

 

and no one says chimps became humans......

 

You many evolution deniers have you talked to?