Page 8 of 81 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 804

Thread: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows[W:571]

  1. #71
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I fully admit to not being terrible educated in this area. But I've long had a question. Supposedly, one of the things that defines a sexually reproducing species, is its inability to breed with other species.

    So when the first mutant appears as the sole representative of a news species, how does it have little mutants?
    What's missing at the heart of your question is an understanding of time and geological isolation that allows speciation to occur. If you have one species and a group of that species migrates to another location, in time (a long, long time), that group will evolve into a species that is different from the original. Should those two groups meet up again and attempt to mate, they will either not be able to reproduce or its young will be sterile. With enough speciation the two wouldn't even dream of attempting to mate with each other.

  2. #72
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    The biggest misconception in understanding evolution is the belief it's based on genetic mutation.

    It is not. That is a minor factor and more often has negative rather than positive consequences

    Evolution is simply a population's genetic complement *changing* in response to environmental influences.

    If there are no significant environmental changes or stresses, then the population...or even species...will remain unchanged. See: horseshoe crab.
    I've always understood most mutations to be neutral. It's the negative ones that get filtered out fairly quickly with the positive ones resulting in a higher chance of survival in the face of a changing environment.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I've always understood most mutations to be neutral. It's the negative ones that get filtered out fairly quickly with the positive ones resulting in a higher chance of survival in reaction to a changing environment.
    I'd say their influence on evolution is mostly neutral. A negative mutation wont hurt a natural population.....it wont succeed. However we do promote negative mutations and traits (not the same things but we exploit mutations to create 'traits') in our domestic animal & plant population and support their propagation thru our influence.

    And here, by negative I mean mutations that would not enhance a population's adaptation and survival.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  4. #74
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    The biggest misconception in understanding evolution is the belief it's based on genetic mutation.

    It is not. That is a minor factor and more often has negative rather than positive consequences

    Evolution is simply a population's genetic complement *changing* in response to environmental influences.

    If there are no significant environmental changes or stresses, then the population...or even species...will remain unchanged. See: horseshoe crab.
    This is a little wrong.

    The horse shoe crab has gone through significant environmental changes or stresses, it's just that the genotypes producing the phenotypes have been successful enough not to warrant significant allele changes. The horseshoe crab today guaranteed is not the same genetically as the one a million years ago.

    Evolution is partially based on genetic mutation, but it's not entirely based on it.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #75
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I fully admit to not being terrible educated in this area. But I've long had a question. Supposedly, one of the things that defines a sexually reproducing species, is its inability to breed with other species.

    So when the first mutant appears as the sole representative of a news species, how does it have little mutants?
    There's interbreeding (a male donkey and a female horse = mule). These hybrid animals cannot reproduce. Mules don't have mule babies. They are mere a byproduct of mating between two similar species.

    Then there's evolution - passing down strong genetic traits generation to generation.

    Example of a 'mutant' as you're labeling it would be a child born with a myostatin deficiency - a condition which causes excessive muscle growth. If the child receives the genetic mutation from one parent, their anomalies won't be quite so noticeable. If they receive it from both parents they're going to be noticeably stronger - visually - a little Hercules. If such a person has children with another person who is, also, mystatin deficient, the odds are high that they'll pass that onto their kids. So on - so forth.

    The genetic passing stops when the trait comes to an end.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  6. #76
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    I'd say their influence on evolution is mostly neutral. A negative mutation wont hurt a natural population.....it wont succeed. However we do promote negative mutations and traits (not the same things but we exploit mutations to create 'traits) in our domestic animal & plant populations.
    I guess that depends on your point of view. Sure, on one hand dogs we've bred to be lapdogs would be terribly suited for the wild, but if it exhibits the right traits we'll be more likely to breed it. In any case I'm not sure how well the topic of breeding fits in with natural selection.

  7. #77
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    They do this by splitting evolution up into macro and micro evolution. No, I'm not saying it's smart, I'm just saying that's how they rationalize it.
    It's stupid though. A million little changes results in lots of big changes. I feel only those who are grasping to straws do that. If every day I do some change to a piece of paper from applying cold, to vaporizing some, to melting wax, coloring it, so on and so forth, it is still paper a 100 days from now or something quite different? That's the idiocy of the micro but no macro arguement. They assume little changes don't result in big changes.

    The tax code has undergone hundreds of thousands of little changes from its early days. Under their idiotic argument, it's still the 10 page document it started off as rather than the monstrosity it is now.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #78
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    This is a little wrong.

    The horse shoe crab has gone through significant environmental changes or stresses, it's just that the genotypes producing the phenotypes have been successful enough not to warrant significant allele changes. The horseshoe crab today guaranteed is not the same genetically as the one a million years ago.

    Evolution is partially based on genetic mutation, but it's not entirely based on it.
    No one is genetically 'the same' as anything a million yrs ago.

    And I think I already stated your last sentence, but minimized 'partially' a bit more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #79
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Except that 6000 years isn't long enough for microevolution to result in speciation. QED.

    Have you ever seen a cat turn into a whale? Exactly.
    That depends how we define speciation. Hawaiian fruit flies have evolved into new species in 50 years. And the whole notion of dogs has resulted in a huge number of variety, many of which are unable to breed with each other in a geological heartbeat span of tie. The notion of species is really a man made concept. How do we define what is a species and when it stops and when a new one begins? That's man made.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #80
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No one is genetically 'the same' as anything a million yrs ago.
    Point is that species change even if they don't appear to have. The coelacanth was initially believed to not have changed from fossils until people started looking harder at it. The coelacanth from the fossil record is quite different from the coelacanth swimming off the coast of Madagascar.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 81 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •