We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Define Evolution
| 91 | 11178 |
What is evolution for you? (please no copying out of dictionaries or investigating before you post)
I will not argue against them because what you think is what you think.
- 91 Replies
I can believe a blue pen is red but that doesn't really make it red
You can also say evolution is real, but it doesn't make it real.
What aspects of evolution do you disagree with? Please don't tell me you're one of those ''fish can't turn into birds'' people. It's blunt ignorance like that which makes me want to go live on Mars.
I disagree with the whole concept. I don't believe that fish can turn into birds, lol. That is blunt ignorance. I want to live on pluto by the way. :P
Okay, do you accept natural selection as proven fact? At least? Because that's been proven - survival of the fittest, those best suited to the environment will survive to pass on those traits, and eventually the entire species will possess them due to natural selection, etc.
I do believe in natural selection, but I don't believe evolution is natural selection, as few argue. I agree, due to natural selection the dominate trait will survive, and eventually natural selection will be no more, due to everyone having the same traits.
If he wasn't so set in his ways, he'd take the effort to look it up for himself.
I know about the different concepts of evolution. I just don't agree with them.
Oh, I know, see I was planning to pull the reductionist/holistic card on him, thanks for the debate c**kblock there, lol
Haha, your soo funny.
All threads are discussions. If you didn't want a discussion, why make a thread?
I agree.
This is not a matter of opinion. Evolution is one thing with one definition that is not opinion-based
Correct, but what I am arguing is that I don't believe in it, not the definition of it.
I want to know what people know
Then why don't you discuss what you believe? That's how you learn about other views.
I do believe in natural selection, but I don't believe evolution is natural selection, as few argue. I agree, due to natural selection the dominate trait will survive, and eventually natural selection will be no more, due to everyone having the same traits.
If you don't believe natural selection is evolution, your definition of evolution is wrong. Because natural selection and evolution are the exact same thing. So if you accept natural selection, you accept evolution, even if you think you don't. Also, natural selection will continue forever, because our environment is dynamic.
Correct, but what I am arguing is that I don't believe in it, not the definition of it.
Which is a logical, semantic and technical contradiction if you accept natural selection, because natural selection is evolution looked at reductionistically. All those little changes over time amount to a large step in the long run - evolution is just looking at a block of millions of little changes and seeing the overall difference instead of looking at the little changes generation-by-generation.
You can also say evolution is real, but it doesn't make it real
Same goes for your god.
Using his red example, we could preform studies, have others look at it, look at the pigment in the color, and preform hundreds of other tests to prove that it is red. Same goes with evelution. The facts support it, the experements support it, the only thing keeping it back is creatonist views.
I do believe in natural selection, but I don't believe evolution is natural selection, as few argue. I agree, due to natural selection the dominate trait will survive, and eventually natural selection will be no more, due to everyone having the same traits.
Nateral selection becomes evelution. When the traits land in an enclosed arai, or somthing happens to the envornment, they are forced to change. It could be somthing as simple as the wolves being stronger this year to to nateral selection or as advanced as a metior hitting earth. They become a different species to fit the different conditions. And thats one example of darastic evelution whitch whould be sped up by the conditions....
, your definition of evolution is wrong
Uhh... no, My definition is right, maybe yours is wrong.
Because natural selection and evolution are the exact same thing. So if you accept natural selection, you accept evolution
That's your opinion. I accept natural selection due to the fact that it and evolution aren't the same thing.
I really don't feel like arguing at the current moment because I feel like shit, I will log on later to state what other things I want to say.
So basically we were all fish, swimming around in our own poop and drinking the same water we pee. then one day a couple of fish have a retarded fish baby, and since it was different, it got to live. The retarded fish makes more retarded fish babies and then one day a retarded fish crawls out on land with mutant fish hands, and has B*tt S*x with a squirrel and makes a retarded fish-squirrel. and the retarded baby was a monkey fish frog, and the monkey fish frog had a baby which screwed a monkey which made a retarded mutant baby and that screwed another monkey, and the outcome is the human race. We are the retarded offspring of five monkeys having b**t s** with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations.
You. Need to actually know what Evolution is. First of all, it does not mean you can mate with different species. Second of all, it takes a LONG TIME for any incremented change in a species to happen. This is FACT.
The most general definition of Evolution is "change over time". This definition in itself just debunked DDX's post in its entirety. Let me just say, I do hope you were joking.
You can also say evolution is real, but it doesn't make it real.
Believing evolution is really taking place is not like believing in God or in my analogy believing the blue pen is red. it's not a matter of opinion but a matter of what the evidence at hand supports. If I believe the pen is red but I have it objectively tested in independent ways and all those tests agree with each other and say that my view that pen being red is wrong. I would have to discard that belief regardless of how much I I believe or want it to be red.
Evolution has the supporting evidence in this same way.
I do believe in natural selection, but I don't believe evolution is natural selection, as few argue. I agree, due to natural selection the dominate trait will survive, and eventually natural selection will be no more, due to everyone having the same traits.
So what your saying is flawed genetic traits can be weeded out of the gene pool but new genetic traits can't emerge?
I accept natural selection due to the fact that it and evolution aren't the same thing.
I'm curious to see where you pulled that misguided fact. I fail to understand how evolution and natural selection are not the same thing.
You have a creature with a desirable trait. It has babies and passes aforesaid trait on. The branch with the trait survives, the branch without dies. Thus the creature has evolved, and now all the creatures have that new trait.
That is natural selection pertaining to evolution. Meaning: Natural selection is evolution.
That's your opinion. I accept natural selection due to the fact that it and evolution aren't the same thing.
Stop being uninformed. They're the same thing! Get it through your head! If you think they're different, you don't know what either of them really are.
Uhh... no, My definition is right, maybe yours is wrong.
Microevolution = natural selection
Macroevolution = larger genetic changes over a long period of time
Macroevolution is made up of microevolutionary changes. Therefore, macroevolution = microevolution over time.
You accept microevolution as the proven fact that it is. Therefore, unless you believe time doesn't exist, you also accept macroevolution. Get it through your head, and either be ignorant and disown natural selection, or accept evolution as a whole.
And about the whole 'microevolution = macroevolution' thing, wikipedia agrees with meeeee.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.
From here.
If you accept natural selection but not macroevolution, it would make perfect sense for you to believe a puzzle piece exists, but a completed puzzle doesn't, or that the individual ingredients of a soup exist, but that the soup as a whole doesn't. What you're saying is contradictory, ignorant, and senseless, and you need to realize that.
You can also say evolution is real, but it doesn't make it real.
Too bad we aren't just saying evolution is real, we have facts to back it up.
I disagree with the whole concept. I don't believe that fish can turn into birds, lol. That is blunt ignorance. I want to live on pluto by the way. :P
The fact you accept your own blunt ignorance is testament to the irrationality of your beliefs. Note that not all beliefs are created equal. You're free to share them though, however unsound they may be.
@adios194
I just realized you have said what you think evolution is not but you haven't said what you think evolution is. So what do you think the definition is?
I do believe in natural selection, but I don't believe evolution is natural selection, as few argue
How can something that is FROM the Origin of Species, aka the original book of Evolution, NOT be from Evolution? It is one of the many laws that is tied together with the entire scheme of Evolution, along with Survival of the Fittest and Geographical Isolation. You CANNOT pull these apart and claim it is not part of Evolution.
Evolution is like the egg came first and then the chicken...
If your a creationist then the chicken probably came first and then made the egg...
I belive adios194 is only a troll.
So by his point of wiew, this is real. Because I belive it.
And I need no proof of it. Because I belive it.
And evolution and natural selection are the same thing; oddly, even if you don't belive it.
@adios194
I just realized you have said what you think evolution is not but you haven't said what you think evolution is. So what do you think the definition is?
I don't have a definition of it due to my lack of believing the concept of it.
If your a creationist then the chicken probably came first and then made the egg
I believe this one. If the egg came first then the embryo would die due to the lack of warmth, thus two chicken came first and mated to create an egg.
I belive adios194 is only a troll.
So by his point of wiew, this is real. Because I belive it.
And I need no proof of it. Because I belive it.
And evolution and natural selection are the same thing; oddly, even if you don't belive it.
Do you always resort to calling someone a troll. This is my view so to be quite frank you can do everything I told you to before I was banned the first time. Also, learn how to spell before you try to criticize someone.
You must be logged in to post a reply!