Where Forbes Disproves Natural Selection

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]forbes wrote:

I actually use probability to come to my conclusion. I cannot see how random chance events can produce the perfect environment for life to arise as a single cell and evolving into every species of plant, animal, bacteria, fungus etc. that we know of today. I don’t think thats even possible.[/quote]

Galaxies tend to be composed of around 100 Billion to 1 trillion stars. There are about 100 billion to 1 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe… We’re talking anywhere between 10 to the 22nd or 24th power… 10 sextillion or 1 septillion stars in the universe.

And you think it’s unlikely that this could have happened by chance???

You’re talking here about a single-purpose structure with a minimum of flaws. Most complex organisms are multi-purpose and riddled with fundamental flaws which can be traced to maladaptation and gradual changes in physiology over the course of evolution. The two are not even remotely similar.

Consider that fact that our sinuses drain from the top… pretty fucking stupid, unless you happen to spend a lot of time on all fours. Or, look at our catastrophe of a spine… completely useless for an inflexible, upright mammal.

82

Creationists don’t have a problem with natural selection. It’s macroevolution.

83

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[/quote]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

Your parent’s are not the same species as you? Interesting.
[/quote]

You asked for the closest previous link in a chain of speciation. I am making the assumption that my species will continue. Which means that, at some point, my parents, grandparents, etc, etc are all links in a chain of speciation.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

My point was to demonstrate that not offering an explanation while not agreeing with the one provided is perfectly valid. Whether it’s intent in the criminal case or something else.
[/quote]

You didn’t demonstrate that, since we don’t need motive to show whether someone committed a crime or not.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
See my very first post in this thread. I’m yet to see an explanation of exactly how natural selection leads to speciation in say primates.
[/quote]

Again, why should we convince you? Seems like all you have going for you is a weak argument from incredulity.

Your request here seems confused. You accept common descent, so why do we need to show you how natural selection worked on hominids? Why not any evidence of natural selection?

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
So if you could explain that, using Homo Sapiens as an example that would be a good start :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I see at as totally superfluous. Please explain why - outside of your own incredulity, it’s worth the effort.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Basic level of explanation will do - for example - smaller jaw led to bigger brain etc.
And again, the burden of irreducible complexity is not on those who question evolution via natural selection, it’s on those who are trying to prove it’s crucial role in evolution.
[/quote]

There’s no need for me to show this - it’s simply a stalling tactic. IC is not an explanation, it’s not in contention to be one, nor is intelligent design.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the “weakness” of my position - I’m just a sceptical layman not convinced with the explanations provided by the scientific community. Afaik there are scientists who disagree with Darwinism as well so I’ll let them handle the gory details.
[/quote]

Why should anyone care to convince you of anything though? You could be a solipsist for all we know. Your demands for a specific chain of descent seem completely unreasonable ESPECIALLY considering that we are all ‘skeptical laymen’.

Also, all (or rather, most) scientists disagree with “Darwinism”, since Darwinism went out of fashion in the early 1900’s. At best you could say neo-darwinism, but still, this is rhetoric, not substance.

Yes, it’s known that something like 4 percent of the 10’s of thousands of scientists with degrees in the relevant fields disagree with evolution. I’m sure you can find the same number who disagree with all theories.

Also, none of those scientists are handling the details. In short, you are their best representative.

So what does that say?

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
So far your “I dunno what do you propose” - type answers aren’t making a good impression, no three white lights on those lol.
[/quote]

Why should I care what impression you have? Your selective skepticism is revealing, IMO.

Again, the best explanation is natural selection. If you have a better one, put it forward. Back it up or back it down.

You don’t though. You know this and that’s why you have to use inflammatory rhetoric to try to disparage credible science (‘lame’).[/quote]

speciacion is emergence of new species. so the previous link in the chain of speciacion for you is not your parents, rather that would be the species from whom your species supposedly evolved.

Basically what it boils down to - you’re questioning the necessity of proving things. Of course we both know that this is because you can’t, if you could I’m sure you would’ve.
And please spare me the bs of how unimportant it is do describe the origin of Homo Sapiens using “darwinist” methodology.

As for the term “darwinist” - maybe not the best term out there but sure beats typing “those who believe that evolution via natural selection is solely responsible for evolving of life forms”. That’s basically what I mean by that. Yeah there are other things like “genetic drift” but explaining how those work in reality is even more difficult.

I actually don’t have a problem with Natural Selection per se when it’s kept within the scope it applies to which would be adaptation of species to the environment. But that’s about it.

And again - I’m not a scientist, I don’t have to come up with scientifically verifiable ideas that would explain the things science itself can’t.

84

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

I actually use probability to come to my conclusion. I cannot see how random chance events can produce the perfect environment for life to arise as a single cell and evolving into every species of plant, animal, bacteria, fungus etc. that we know of today. I don’t think thats even possible.[/quote]

Galaxies tend to be composed of around 100 Billion to 1 trillion stars. There are about 100 billion to 1 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe… We’re talking anywhere between 10 to the 22nd or 24th power… 10 sextillion or 1 septillion stars in the universe.

And you think it’s unlikely that this could have happened by chance???

You’re talking here about a single-purpose structure with a minimum of flaws. Most complex organisms are multi-purpose and riddled with fundamental flaws which can be traced to maladaptation and gradual changes in physiology over the course of evolution. The two are not even remotely similar.

Consider that fact that our sinuses drain from the top… pretty fucking stupid, unless you happen to spend a lot of time on all fours. Or, look at our catastrophe of a spine… completely useless for an inflexible, upright mammal. [/quote]

And yet in our vast observable universe, we are the only planet with life…

Now, let us say there are thousands upon thousands of planets just like us with people just like us. That supports my view even further. Unlikely events happening multiple times over. I just don’t see any place for random chance.

85

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
So then you admit that you hold beliefs inconsistently?[/quote]

I do not hold inconsistent beliefs. That would mean I keep changing my mind. I think you’re referring to your beliefs that mine are invalid because they are not part of the current scientific literature. I will actually agree that it shouldn’t be.

[quote]
There’s a few things wrong with this:

  1. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the origin of the species, not the origin of life. So your probability calculations, even if accurate, have nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution is valid.
  2. The theory of evolution (natural selection, sexual selection, etc) is not random at all.
  3. Probability formulas are only as good as the numbers used - I would point you here, with reference to the probability of abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html[/quote]

  1. You’re right, but they go hand in hand. The original cell that developed from the primordial soup evolved into every species we know today. I have a hard time believing that in the absence of a creator. Again, what is the probability that this occured from random chance?

  2. You’re right its not, but I was talking about the original cell eventually evolving into everything else. That would seem random.

3)I’ll look at it.

[quote]
Also, have you run a probability of God’s existence?[/quote

There’s only one decision: either he does or he doesn’t. So its 50/50. I will take design or the roll of cosmic dice.

[quote]
Finally, with the possibility of multiple universes and the vast amount of planets in this universe, even if the probability you generate was accurate, it seems to suggest that it’s still possible - which means it would be more rational, no matter how improbable, then the alternative.[/quote]

Anything is possible. I will admit that life generating “just because” is most definitely a possibility. I really just don’t see it happening.

[quote]
I would say it was crazy because we know how houses are made. We know, for example, that intelligent beings put pre-existing materials together into a certain fashion. This was one of Hume’s objections to intelligent design. He made it in the 1700’s and it’s still valid today.

Unfortunately life is not analogous to this since THERE is a mechanism for complexity - namely natural selection acting upon random mutations. In other words, if the houses were like life is, then we wouldn’t need to suppose intelligent actors.[/quote]

The wood used to make the foundation for a house was once life.

Let’s deduct something here (and Im talking about the origin of life not evolution):

EVERYTHING in the universe is made up of matter, which have volume and take up space. The two most popular theories circulating the origin of life are abiogenesis and panspermia. I will address abiogenesis because I believe, as far as I know, that it is the more popular theory (please correct me if Im wrong).

Abiogenesis says that life arose out of non-life. That means atoms (matter), for no reason and under no direction, formed complex molecules. These came together to form cell organelles, then cells, then all the say to multicellular organisms. Me and you are just a composure of atoms. So the atoms that make up life (far more complex then any structure) can occur under random conditions, but a house (also made up of matter like you and I)…can’t?

86

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

speciacion is emergence of new species. so the previous link in the chain of speciacion for you is not your parents, rather that would be the species from whom your species supposedly evolved.
[/quote]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Speciation:

What you are thinking of is saltation:

No worries… I had to be reminded of the term, too.

[quote] Basically what it boils down to - you’re questioning the necessity of proving things. Of course we both know that this is because you can’t, if you could I’m sure you would’ve.
And please spare me the bs of how unimportant it is do describe the origin of Homo Sapiens using “darwinist” methodology.[/quote]

The problem here is that you are not willing to accept uncertainty. This is one of the reasons why people develop religions with absolutist explanations of the world… they are too weak to accept uncertainty.

No scientist would claim to have the last word on anything.

Science can’t definitively, with 100% certainty, explain anything. Nor, I wager, can religion… it just thinks it can.

87

[quote]forbes wrote:

And yet in our vast observable universe, we are the only planet with life… [/quote]

I certainly don’t think so.

Chance and random may be synonymous in some contexts, but not really here… We are delving into the realm of determinism and non-determinism, and there is already a healthy thread on this; “concept of infinity.”

88

[quote]forbes wrote:

There’s only one decision: either he does or he doesn’t. So its 50/50. I will take design or the roll of cosmic dice. [/quote]

Following that logic, there’s also a 50/50 chance that the universe is the result of a mighty shit from the flying spaghetti monster… of course, this has nothing to do with probability.

89

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
speciacion is emergence of new species. so the previous link in the chain of speciacion for you is not your parents, rather that would be the species from whom your species supposedly evolved.
[/quote]

This is incorrect - the new species does not come from no where, as you are suggesting. This is the entire point of Darwin’s “Origin of the species”.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

Basically what it boils down to - you’re questioning the necessity of proving things. Of course we both know that this is because you can’t, if you could I’m sure you would’ve.
And please spare me the bs of how unimportant it is do describe the origin of Homo Sapiens using “darwinist” methodology.
[/quote]

Proving things is for math and philosophy, not science. I’ve said this on numerous occasions. Science works on best explanations and falsification.

As to ‘darwinist’ methodology, I have no idea what you mean by that. As to your challenge - as I pointed out, it is hopelessly confused. You already said you accepted common descent - so why do you need a chain of hominids?

What you have a problem with is natural selection. I can provide many examples of that, that do not require forensic anthropology. So, again, I ask you why you need anything to do with hominids? It makes no sense.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the term “darwinist” - maybe not the best term out there but sure beats typing “those who believe that evolution via natural selection is solely responsible for evolving of life forms”.
[/quote]

Actually you could just say ‘modern scientist’ instead of ‘darwinist’, since using darwinist is inaccurate and simply rhetoric.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
That’s basically what I mean by that. Yeah there are other things like “genetic drift” but explaining how those work in reality is even more difficult.
[/quote]

Even what you typed out is incorrect, since as I’ve repeatedly said, modern scientists believe that the theory of evolution includes several ‘selectors’, such as sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Frankly it’s a bit obvious that you aren’t following along all that closely. Your request for a hominid line is an attack on common descent, not natural selection. Yet you persist while paradoxically claiming that you accept common descent.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I actually don’t have a problem with Natural Selection per se when it’s kept within the scope it applies to which would be adaptation of species to the environment. But that’s about it.
[/quote]

“Adaptation”? Are you a lamarkian? Natural selection is not adaptation to an environment, natural selection is the idea that you have two organisms, one with a mutation that is beneficial to the organism and the other with no such mutation. The one with the beneficial mutation gets ‘selected’ (a la mathusian population dynamics).

You are now arguing that a giraffe’s neck gets bigger because it stretches it’s neck to reach food and then some how passes on that stretched neck to it’s offspring (adaptation).

This is empirically false.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And again - I’m not a scientist, I don’t have to come up with scientifically verifiable ideas that would explain the things science itself can’t.
[/quote]

Yes, we know you aren’t a scientist. We also know you can’t come up with a better explanation.

What we don’t know is what you are doing in this thread and what you think you are accomplishing. It seems to be that you are ignoring 1/2 of what is being said (I’ve had to repeat myself multiple times) and making up a lot of stuff (and claiming it’s evolution).

It’s a bit insulting and it’s even more insulting when you factor in the idea that you are essentially saying that 10’s of thousands of scientists who have spent decades studying these things are wasting their time because you have a poor understanding of biology.

90

[quote]forbes wrote:
And yet in our vast observable universe, we are the only planet with life…[/quote]

We just got the ability to see other planets and you are already ready to throw in the towel and declare there’s no life out there?

A bit hasty, don’t you think?

[quote]forbes wrote:

Now, let us say there are thousands upon thousands of planets just like us with people just like us. That supports my view even further. Unlikely events happening multiple times over. I just don’t see any place for random chance. [/quote]

You know what’s funny? If the universe is large enough, the probability that there is a mirror planet, where we are all discussing these things is nearly certain.

That’s assuming random chance (which the theory of evolution most certainly is not).

[quote]forbes wrote:
I do not hold inconsistent beliefs. That would mean I keep changing my mind. I think you’re referring to your beliefs that mine are invalid because they are not part of the current scientific literature. I will actually agree that it shouldn’t be. [/quote]

No, that’s not what it would mean. It would mean that you accept some things on faith while other things you demand certainty…Which is exactly what you are doing.

[quote]forbes wrote:

  1. You’re right, but they go hand in hand. The original cell that developed from the primordial soup evolved into every species we know today. I have a hard time believing that in the absence of a creator. Again, what is the probability that this occured from random chance? [/quote]

Not necessarily - it’s an invalid argument to suggest that because abiogenesis is wrong therefore common descent is wrong. It would be equally invalid to say that because abiogenesis is wrong, therefore gravity is wrong.

Same principle.

Further, you are the only one suggesting random chance - you support it. I fail to see why I should support such a contention, since I agree with what scientists have uncovered and it’s not random chance.

[quote]forbes wrote:
2) You’re right its not, but I was talking about the original cell eventually evolving into everything else. That would seem random. [/quote]

That’s still not random. The various explanations all require certain thresholds and certain factors. Have you read about the protocell, for instance?

[quote]forbes wrote:
There’s only one decision: either he does or he doesn’t. So its 50/50. I will take design or the roll of cosmic dice.
[/quote]

This is incorrect - why should his existence get equal treatment? Further, why should your particular god get a 50-50 shot? seems to me that out of thousands of Gods, your God has a 1 in, let’s say, 10,000 shot.

So probabilistically speaking, you are better off picking deities that aren’t mutually exclusive.

[quote]forbes wrote:
Anything is possible. I will admit that life generating “just because” is most definitely a possibility. I really just don’t see it happening.
[/quote]

I don’t believe that anything is possible. It seems to me that a square sphere is impossible, since their attributes contradict each other. I would argue that “God” is essentially the same, but I’ll save that for later.

As to your incredulity, that’s fine. I have a hard time believing that the red socks could win the world series. Reality, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to care what I think.

[quote]forbes wrote:
The wood used to make the foundation for a house was once life.

[/quote]

So? I’m not saying that dead animals can speciate…

[quote]forbes wrote:
Let’s deduct something here (and Im talking about the origin of life not evolution):

EVERYTHING in the universe is made up of matter, which have volume and take up space. The two most popular theories circulating the origin of life are abiogenesis and panspermia. I will address abiogenesis because I believe, as far as I know, that it is the more popular theory (please correct me if Im wrong).
[/quote]

There are actually several theories of abiogenesis, it’s not just ‘one theory’. There’s the RNA world hypothesis, thermal vents, and a few others.

[quote]forbes wrote:
Abiogenesis says that life arose out of non-life. That means atoms (matter), for no reason and under no direction, formed complex molecules. These came together to form cell organelles, then cells, then all the say to multicellular organisms. Me and you are just a composure of atoms. So the atoms that make up life (far more complex then any structure) can occur under random conditions, but a house (also made up of matter like you and I)…can’t?
[/quote]

No theory of abiogenesis suggests this.

You are already assuming that abiogenesis involves the modern cell - which is a mistake. You take away that assumption and your argument falls apart. Look up protocells. Even that is not the first step, but it’s one that we’ve replicated.

Still though, I would take some explanation as opposed to no explanation. God did it, via magic, is not a rational explanation. So even if I’m missing a few steps, it’s infinitely more rational to accept that then it is to accept ‘magic’, which is what you are putting forward.

If this is not what you are suggesting, then please correct me and tell me how God created life.

91

Pangloss, I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, you keep repeating same things that I’ve already “addressed” maybe not to your satisfaction but I’m not going to repeat myself.
Not a big fan of long drawn-out discussions, so I’ll compress this a bit.

"This is incorrect - the new species does not come from no where, as you are suggesting. This is the entire point of Darwin’s “Origin of the species”. " - not following you here.
Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor according you so are you saying we’re not talking about at least 3 separate species here?

"Natural selection is not adaptation to an environment, natural selection is the idea that you have two organisms, one with a mutation that is beneficial to the organism and the other with no such mutation. " - define “beneficial”.

92

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Pangloss, I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, you keep repeating same things that I’ve already “addressed” maybe not to your satisfaction but I’m not going to repeat myself.
Not a big fan of long drawn-out discussions, so I’ll compress this a bit.
[/quote]

A few things:

My apologies for getting a bit snippy. I’ve had these conversations way too many times before and it feels like treading the same ground again and again without any progress. It could be just miscommunication - I see things one way, you see them a different way, and when I try to explain the way I see things that view is filtered through how you see them. Neither of our faults really, but frustrating none the less.

The other thing is that, really, this topic deserves a long conversation - which I don’t think either of us really have the desire to get into. It deserves a long conversation because there are a lot of things that need defining and a lot of evidence to mull over.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

"This is incorrect - the new species does not come from no where, as you are suggesting. This is the entire point of Darwin’s “Origin of the species”. " - not following you here.
Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor according you so are you saying we’re not talking about at least 3 separate species here?
[/quote]

Species is kind of a nebulous term - I say that because the ‘edges’ of a species are necessarily blurred. Look at ring species - one species can interbreed with two different species (which cannot interbreed). So is that three species or two and a half species?

Here’s how it works:

Parents A has two kids, B and C.

B and C have kids of their own. The descendents of B and the descendents of C have kids and so on and so on.

If we isolate all those generations from one another - so descendents of B go to the north pole and descendents of C go to the south - and we wait, what will happen is as follows.

Both sets of descendents will accumulate differing mutations which will spread among their respective groups. So all of B’s first generation descendents will have mutations 1. All of C’s first generation descendents will have 2. These mutations/differences are small and not very noticable. For simplicities sake, let’s say that all of B’s mutations equate to an extra layer of skin, while all of C’s mutations equate to an extra inch of hair.

After multiple generations the accumulation of these types of generations will produce a yeti descendent of C and a mole man descendent of B. Keep in mind this is just one type of mutation. People have multiple mutations (around 60-80 per person). As you can already see, with one type of continuous mutation, the two sets of descendents have diverged. I would even say they would have to have speciated since the descendents of the mole people would have genitalia that cannot fit into the descendents of the yeti.

All of the descendents that passed along genetic material are ‘missing links’, since without each individual to pass on their genetic material, the chain gets broken.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

"Natural selection is not adaptation to an environment, natural selection is the idea that you have two organisms, one with a mutation that is beneficial to the organism and the other with no such mutation. " - define “beneficial”.
[/quote]

A beneficial mutation would be one that helps an organism pass on it’s genetic material better then the same species of organism that does not have the mutation.

There are three, general, types of mutations, benefical, neutral, and deleterious. Neutral mutations make up the bulk, since deleterious mutations tend to get the organism killed before it can pass on it’s genetic material.

93

I understand that there are some blurred edges when defining species but there are cats and dogs and their common ancestor and I suppose there’s really no chain of fixated mutations established between them, let alone with any kind of explanation of how a given mutation managed to fixate since that would require explaining exactly how it would be beneficial. Which leads to the definition of beneficial.

“A beneficial mutation would be one that helps an organism pass on it’s genetic material better then the same species of organism that does not have the mutation.” - ok. But exactly how will that happen? Won’t that be due to the fact that a mutation will give it’s carrier advantage due to better adaptability?
Such as a higher rate of survival if they get a mutation that helps blend in with the surroundings or a faster set of legs to hunt/run away depending on which side of the predator/prey equation the organism is etc etc.
Aren’t most if not all explanations of how a mutation would be beneficial essentially revolve around how it would help it’s carrier to survive longer, eat more, procreate more etc etc in other words adapt to the environment better then the competition?

94

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I understand that there are some blurred edges when defining species but there are cats and dogs and their common ancestor and I suppose there’s really no chain of fixated mutations established between them, let alone with any kind of explanation of how a given mutation managed to fixate since that would require explaining exactly how it would be beneficial. Which leads to the definition of beneficial.[/quote]

Not only that, but beneficial mutations aren’t the only ones that get distributed in a gene pool. Genetic drift can ensure that benign mutations get passed along - like gene duplications.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
“A beneficial mutation would be one that helps an organism pass on it’s genetic material better then the same species of organism that does not have the mutation.” - ok. But exactly how will that happen? Won’t that be due to the fact that a mutation will give it’s carrier advantage due to better adaptability? [/quote]

I see what you are getting at, but in my opinion adaptability is the wrong word. To use a real life example, consider the Nylon bug. IIRC, a frame shift mutation was the catalyst that enabled this bug to digest nylonaise, which has only been around in the last 50 years. The bug didn’t ‘adapt’ to it in the normal sense - so a bug without the gene did not ‘develop’ the gene per say. Instead, a gene mutated randomly and it just happened to enable some members of the bug’s species to digest nylon.

Read about it here: Evolution and INFORMATION - the Nylon Bug!

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Such as a higher rate of survival if they get a mutation that helps blend in with the surroundings or a faster set of legs to hunt/run away depending on which side of the predator/prey equation the organism is etc etc.
Aren’t most if not all explanations of how a mutation would be beneficial essentially revolve around how it would help it’s carrier to survive longer, eat more, procreate more etc etc in other words adapt to the environment better then the competition? [/quote]

I’ve been talking about mutations, but another thing to consider is the genes that are already in the organisms. Some will be more useful then others.

As to the faster set of legs, there’s actually an interesting book about the ‘evolutionary arms race’, so-to-speak that details this sort of thing and mentions the limitation of development.

As to your question - successful genes do not necessarily correlate with helping an organism to live longer, eat more, etc. Successful genes are those that get it’s host to pass them on to the next one more successfully then other genes.

It’s a selection process. The trouble with ‘adapt’ is that it suggests that an organism can change it’s own genes to make them more suitable for the environment. This is not what happens. Nature, through tooth and claw ‘selects’ the better genes. This is actually a modification of Mathius’ (sp?) population mathematics that Darwin drew on.

95

Darwin didn’t actually come up with anything new. Common descent had been suggested since the ancient greeks (but not widely believed) and in fact, his grandfather (IIRC) was a proponent. Natural selection wasn’t really ‘new’, since Darwin got the idea from Malthus (principles of population). What was revolutionary was Darwin’s application of Malthus principles as a means of selection in nature.

From Malthus, referring to populations of people:

""Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."

From here: Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia

Also, from wikipedia (quoting Smith):

“”[A population] cannot increase logarithmically for ever. Sooner or later, a shortage of resources must bring the increase to a halt. It was this insight which led both Darwin and Wallace acquired by reading… Malthus, and which led to the idea of natural selection.“”

A shortage of resources would mean that the organism with more favorable variations would have an advantage in acquiring those resources.

96

I believe in natural selection, but why roaches?! Why flys?! I fucking hate those things…

Life is weird, you got things that survive off of sulfur dioxide instead of oxygen. Many living things survive off of things that would kill other things, but the things it would kill get eaten by other things, yet it cannot eat the same food as it’s prey…Life, it’s contradictory…

97

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Proof? I have some…

Here in Los Angeles, we have had about 5 straight days of rain. Not just sprinkling, but down right nature’s takin’ a piss on the city and state. Then we have some stupid fuck deciding to go hiking when we have homes sliding down the hills off of their foundations.

How about that?

Fucking Social (De)Evolution.

I say fuck these people, let Darwinism run it’s course, we as a people do not need mentally irregular people like this breathing or breeding.[/quote]

So much humanity in this post.

98

Natural Selection is a theory, not a law. For a theory to be incorrect, it has to be disproven. For it to be a law, it has to be proven. Neither has been done yet. So, it’s still a theory. Not a law. Just my two cents.

Luke

99

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Natural Selection is a theory, not a law. For a theory to be incorrect, it has to be disproven. For it to be a law, it has to be proven. Neither has been done yet. So, it’s still a theory. Not a law. Just my two cents.

Luke[/quote]

Technically, for theory to become a law, it has to be essentially codified by the scientific community… Nothing is proven with 100% certainty.

100

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< Technically, for theory to become a law, it has to be essentially codified by the scientific community… Nothing is proven with 100% certainty. [/quote]Well zippity doo dah day. I feel better already.