1. Dismiss Notice

The truth about evolution.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by sevensixtwo, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. sevensixtwo

    sevensixtwo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    13
  2. Loading...


  3. jcolanzi

    jcolanzi Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2016
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    407


  4. Harte

    Harte Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,623
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    From your source:
    Meaning anyone at all can post anything they want there. This dismisses the paper as nonscientific in nature. Besides, it attempts to debunk evolution by mutation rates, which has not for a long time been how evolution has been explained - genetic drift is a large part of it.
    Note:
    The above modeling was based on ONLY genetic drift, with no mutation occurring. Source

    When Darwin said "fittest," he didn't mean in the best physical shape. He meant fittest to survive (and, mainly, to reproduce.) Adaptability is a large part of that survival, although there are other aspects, all of them (including "fittest") mostly random.

    Harte
     
    Bullethead21 likes this.


  5. sevensixtwo

    sevensixtwo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    13
    Harte, you are making a mistake coming at me with this stupid shit
     
  6. Harte

    Harte Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,623
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Am I? Please point out my mistake.
    The paper itself states "The purpose of this report is to debunk Darwin's theory of evolution and any variant theory that relies on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes."
    My link clearly shows that evolution occurs with or without relying on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes.
    I pointed out that the natural rate of mutation is not how evolution is currently explained.
    In the opening, the paper concerns itself with "junk DNA," a term from journalism - not science. Science does not consider any DNA to be "junk," and has discovered that what journalism calls "junk DNA" is actually not "junk" at all.

    Therefore the paper is utterly outdated even though it was recently written (2011.)
    That should tell you a few things about the author.

    Harte
     
  7. Classicalfan626

    Classicalfan626 Moderator/Visionary Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,961
    Please guys, let's get back and stick to the topic of this thread.
     
  8. Harte

    Harte Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,623
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    My last post directly (and only) concerned the OP's quote, which quote was the entirety of the OP.
    Where am I going off topic?

    Harte
     
    Bullethead21 likes this.
  9. Classicalfan626

    Classicalfan626 Moderator/Visionary Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,961
    Oh, I'm sorry, I meant sevensixtwo, not you. And it's really just an expression, anyway.
     
  10. Harte

    Harte Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,623
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    LOL
    That's probably the first time it wasn't about my posts.

    Harte
     
    Bullethead21 likes this.
  11. Classicalfan626

    Classicalfan626 Moderator/Visionary Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    1,961
    @Harte - Well, that last post you just made was not necessarily on topic. Now, let's get back to topic, if we please.