evolution

[ThaChozenWun]

How does natural selection tell us in great detail how species came to be? What does it do to determine what is "strong" and "weak"? What are those properties that natural selection chose and how they interact with each other and whether or not even those components chosen even had something that it is also made of...and how were they selected? If there are transitional sequences, can it also be tested instead of just observed?

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

Check this site out it will answer all those questions, I'd paste it but its very long.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

.............................

 

[Punisher__]

might as well cuz the ancestor to an ape was most likely an ape and evolution says we share a common ancestor

You make no sense, whatsoever. You're becoming like...I just don't know. I think you like acting like a dumbass because that's how you get attention.

I would respond to this, but I just can't.

You are so stupid.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

.................

 

[ItzGravitation]

You make no sense, whatsoever. You're becoming like...I just don't know. I think you like acting like a dumbass because that's how you get attention.

I would respond to this, but I just can't.

You are so stupid.

i think yall lacc comprehension as to where i'm coming from

yall said it so i'm just staing it bacc

now you see how dum that shit sound to me

 

[Punisher__]

i think yall lacc comprehension as to where i'm coming from
yall said it so i'm just staing it bacc
now you see how dum that shit sound to me

HAHA. Think before you type, bruh. You don't even have the basic comprehension to understand the shit that you post because it's so off the wall STUPID. Another person who has no knowledge of how evolution works. You're not fit to argue this.

First off, if humans and apes share a common ancestor, how the hell would you come to the conclusion that the particular ancestor in question had to have been an ape? Technically, the species would have had to diverge into two separate lineages, one evolving into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolving into early human ancestors called hominids.

You would've been better off saying that the human/ape ancestor was most likely half ape/half human, which is equally as ridiculous. But atleast the hominid lineage would be accounted for.

 

[ItzGravitation]

HAHA. Think before you type, bruh. You don't even have the basic comprehension to understand the shit that you post because it's so off the wall STUPID. Another person who has no knowledge of how evolution works. You're not fit to argue this.

First off, if humans and apes share a common ancestor, how the hell would you come to the conclusion that the particular ancestor in question had to have been an ape? Technically, the species would have had to diverge into two separate lineages, one evolving into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolving into early human ancestors called hominids.

You would've been better off saying that the human/ape ancestor was most likely half ape/half human, which is equally as ridiculous. But atleast the hominid lineage would be accounted for.

ok i know i cant argue with idiots who believe we and aps are related

 

[Punisher__]

ok i know i cant argue with idiots who believe we and aps are related

So that's your way of bowing out, and not addressing and/or negating anything I posted?

Do us a favor, go pick a book...and come back when you're more informed about the topic.

Dumbass.

 

[ItzGravitation]

So that's your way of bowing out, and not addressing and/or negating anything I posted?

Do us a favor, go pick a book...and come back when you're more informed about the topic.

Dumbass.

dude i've heard several evolution arguments and they are all nonsense

 

[Punisher__]

dude i've heard several evolution arguments and they are all nonsense

How? And why are they nonsense?

 

[Hyde Parke]

You make no sense, whatsoever. You're becoming like...I just don't know. I think you like acting like a dumbass because that's how you get attention.

I would respond to this, but I just can't.

You are so stupid.

Yeah he is pretty stupid, i remember dudette was crying in that thread in GNS on aliens.

 

[ItzGravitation]

really?

i cried in a thread?

you saw me through my monitor or something?

fucc it

beam me up Scotty

 

[theillestrator]

na dude

its common sense

we're too complicated to just be here by chance

complicated by whose standards? humans? just because it's complicated to us doesn't make it so.

 

[Hyde Parke]

really?
i cried in a thread?
you saw me through my monitor or something?
fucc it
beam me up Scotty

yes, you did really, and if you didnt, then you should have, because they was in there beating your ass up..

 

[ItzGravitation]

proof please?

 

[Hyde Parke]

proof please?

go search for it, and up it. you kno whats up, stop frontin.

 

[ItzGravitation]

yeah i'm a lil lazy but i'll look at it

i remember being there

 

[alissowack]

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

Check this site out it will answer all those questions, I'd paste it but its very long.

This is what I see from natural selection: You go and you observe various types of species. You compare bone structures and if there is DNA you compare it too. If there are similarities, then there is common anscestory. Natural selection should tell us to do more than just look at the evidence. Science tells us to do more than that. There ought to be ways of putting quantitative numbers to this. Natural selection says that variation, inheritence, high population, and survival rate are factors. What other things have been done to show that they are. What tests have been ran to re-create what natural selection does? Is it possible to take an existing species and let natural selection determine what it should adapt to?

 

[ThaChozenWun]

This is what I see from natural selection: You go and you observe various types of species. You compare bone structures and if there is DNA you compare it too. If there are similarities, then there is common anscestory. Natural selection should tell us to do more than just look at the evidence. Science tells us to do more than that. There ought to be ways of putting quantitative numbers to this. Natural selection says that variation, inheritence, high population, and survival rate are factors. What other things have been done to show that they are. What tests have been ran to re-create what natural selection does? Is it possible to take an existing species and let natural selection determine what it should adapt to?

With cloning becoming better and our ability in that area we may be able to create the process of natural selection. It would take a long time though for it to run its process because evolution is not an overnight thing. And the theory of evolution relies on much more other than natural selection

 

[alissowack]

With cloning becoming better and our ability in that area we may be able to create the process of natural selection. It would take a long time though for it to run its process because evolution is not an overnight thing. And the theory of evolution relies on much more other than natural selection

But doesn't cloning take away what natural selection is suppose to do? Natural selection allows some random change to happen and selects what is good and rejects what is not. Chances are scientists know what it is they are changing and whether or not they should accept this change. How can natural selection do the same thing? And if evolution is a slow process, then why is there a rush to make the theory a law? So far, no one has been able to observe and identify with accuracy what happens when one species becomes a totally different species or a variant of the same species. We can draw pictures and compare the fossil record, but it doesn't precisely show the process in which those changes happen.