This is not an adaptation. It is a biological process that is present in many species. If there is no mate, the organism goes into asexual reporduction. Nothing about this organism changed. There was no evolution that took place.
We don't agree because you are wrong. Adaptation is not the outcome of evolution. And this was not an adaptation.
hmm strong comeback still even though all what you learned and experienced doesnt make your way right though, one should listen to expertice indeed, but your familiarity with modern concept and its daily principalc makes your view more right because? Just what you cling to believe is the truth, your view of the truth might not apply to other views of the same aspect of things
No, you are correct. It doesn't.
However, I know evolution inside and out. I study it constantly. The general populous knows sh*t about evolution. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the concept bastardized by people who just assume that they know everything about it. So I will point out where people are wrong in thier conceptions.
Evolution is not my view, or anyone elses, its an official sicentific veiw that is fairly clear to people who are familiar with the concept. Now, are you going to tell a relative expert on the subject that his view is only as good as any other shmucks? (not Shakya, but in general) I don't think so. Evolution is not a matter of interpretation. Its not here to be personally interpreted. It is scientific fact. It is a combination of centuries of research. They are grey areas in the Theory, none of which were discussed in this thread.
If Shakya had made a comment that I felt was legitimate interpretation, I wouldn't have cared. However, he blatantly misused a scientific principle. Shakya claimed that evolution states something which it does not. Then he applied evolution in a way that it does not function. Hence, I corrected him as someone with a greater understanding of the modern theory.
No. It doesn't. This is SCIENCE. Not religion. The Theory is quite clear on what it means and how it to be used. There are debateable elements to it, none of which are under discussion here.
It is not anyone's place to believe what a scientific principle says. The evidence speaks for itself. Thats the beauty of science.
You cannot say, "I don't believe that water really freezes at 0 degrees C, its just a matter of interpretation." The same holds true with evolution.
This is SCIENCE. Not religionscience is as it is with religion a belief that this is how it and things is/are.
You cannot say, "I don't believe that water really freezes at 0 degrees C, its just a matter of interpretation." The same holds true with evolution.in our world and our measurements yes, but who said that our view on the mathematical system was the correct one, we assume and believ it is but still..............
Originally posted by finti
science is as it is with religion a belief that this is how it and things is/are.
Scientific evidence is what science believe to be the truth until proven wrong it stands but still its just a belief in whats to be considered "right"in our world and our measurements yes, but who said that our view on the mathematical system was the correct one, we assume and believ it is but still..............
There is no RIGHT and WRONG in science. Science is a collection of observations, of "best guesses." If they are in continuous agreement with all other evidence, we continue to percieve them as fact. There is no belief involved. It seems as if you too, have misconceptions about what science is and what its goals are.
There is no belief required. Answers are not made up. When scientists have evidence, they look at and attempt to objectively state what a given experiment says.
You don't sit there and complain about gravity being a false concept. Yet, you seemingly have a different stance on another Theory, evolution. That seems to be a bit contradictory.
There is no RIGHT and WRONG in science. Science is a collection of observations, of "best guesses." If they are in continuous agreement with all other evidence, we continue to percieve them as fact. There is no belief involved. It seems as if you too, have misconceptions about what science is and what its goals areyou call it guesses I label it as a belief, aint no guesses in this world only facts and as long as the facts cant be proven 100% they are beliefs or a certain way of thinking which mounds to the same
You don't sit there and complain about gravity being a false concept. Yet, you seemingly have a different stance on another Theory, evolution. That seems to be a bit contradictory.I accept the fact that the theory of gravatation being an explatnation of things just as I accept the theory of evelution, dosent mean thats thats the correct way of things though, I just BELIEVE IT IS
Originally posted by FeceMan
Newp.Even young Earth Creationists acknowledge microevolution.
By the way, the Bible doesn't state that virgin births don't happen outside of Christ's birth.
I dont know what "newp" means, but I hope you're not disagreeing.
Btw, "microevolution" is not a sperate concept from "macroevolution" So I hope you are not distinguishing between the two, because that is against the Modern Synthesis and would be evident of a failed understanding of evolution.
I never brought up virgin births at all, so its not relevant.
Originally posted by Alliance
I dont know what "newp" means, but I hope you're not disagreeing.Btw, "microevolution" is not a sperate concept from "macroevolution" So I hope you are not distinguishing between the two, because that is against the Modern Synthesis and would be evident of a failed understanding of evolution.
I never brought up virgin births at all, so its not relevant.
Originally posted by AllianceAnd the scientific views are always expanding and changing. Evolution could encompass more then the little bit you are talking about at this time..........The little bit of what we think we know about evolution could only a the tip of the iceberg of what it really could be...ie..evolving...creating..............OMG, the creation process!However, I know evolution inside and out. I study it constantly. The general populous knows sh*t about evolution. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the concept bastardized by people who just assume that they know everything about it. So I will point out where people are wrong in thier conceptions.
Evolution is not my view, or anyone elses, its an official sicentific veiw .
I love this POV:
There are no facts. What both science and religion say about the world are theories/beliefs. Therefore, in effect, they are equal.
This is like saying $10 is the same as $100,000 because neither are $1,000,000. Or if you're sick and don't know what's wrong, you ask your neighbor for a diagnosis instead of a doctor because, after all, both are giving opinions.
A "theory" is not a one-dimensional entity. Some are better than others. Why? Well, Science (which is basically applied common sense) offers a significant level of predictability. Religion doesn't. This is why everyone uses applied common sense in everyday life (some more than others), whether they realize it or not. Because it works .
Religion, at its best, offers hope, inspiration and compassion. But as a predictor of outcome, it is the wrong tool for the job.
Even Jesus would tell you that (that's my belief), if and when he ever gets here.