lolz

Ok, if you say so.

I personally don't have an issue with the theory of evolution. I just thought Greg made a very good statement. Freaks of nature or evolution we could be.......but there is also the possibility of someones hand being in the stew to make it so. Nobody will ever know for certainty based on science.

Using the scientific method, we are never certain of anything. It's just a best guess based on the available evidence.

Brown noser.

Never been accused of being a brown noser before.

ishkabibble wrote:
That said, bacteria have become antibiotic resistant. Is that a good enough example of "recent evolution" for you?

That's microevolution. Same as people getting taller. Not applicable.

ishkabibble wrote:
Natural selection only comes into effect when traits are "selected out" of the environment, not "selected in". It's a process of elimination.

Wrong-o-matic.

You can look at it as "short giraffes die before they can procreate", but countless studies in genetics have shown that taller ones (and thereby stronger ones) survive to produce multiple offspring.

That's selecting IN, not OUT.

Basic biology - Favorable "accidental" mutations get the "oh boy, this is good for us" treatment, while defective ones die off. You just have it backwards.

It's an awful lot of work to make all this stuff attributable to chance.

AZhitman wrote:It's an awful lot of work to make all this stuff attributable to chance.

Which was pretty much my point. If evolution itself was the defacto standard then why are we the only ones who have evolved at all while other creatures, even those very similar, have shown no changes at all.

I have no problems with the theory of evolution per-se as any change can be generally attributed to "evolutionary" in some aspects based upon a geneal view of the definition. As an example, some animals have evolved to have certain physical traits in order to survive in the environment they are in. BUT their resoning is by instinct and they cannot manipulate the environment to suit themselves which is a trait that only humans have.

AZhitman wrote:
That's microevolution. Same as people getting taller. Not applicable.

That's nutrition, not evolution.

Evolution is evolution. Doesn't matter what prefix you stick in front of it.

AZhitman wrote:You can look at it as "short giraffes die before they can procreate", but countless studies in genetics have shown that taller ones (and thereby stronger ones) survive to produce multiple offspring.

That's selecting IN, not OUT.

Basic biology - Favorable "accidental" mutations get the "oh boy, this is good for us" treatment, while defective ones die off. You just have it backwards.

The "normal"/defective ones don't always die off. There needs to be a condition which selects them OUT, even if that condition is the "improved" individuals pushing them OUT. Otherwise, they stay in the gene pool. For example, having more hair on our head is seen as a favorable condition... so what are you and I still doing here...

I used to be a genetics major, FWIW. I may be rusty, but I know how this stuff works.

ishkabibble wrote:
Evolution is evolution. Doesn't matter what prefix you stick in front of it.

No offense intended, but that's about as incorrect as you can get. They're actually quite different, and there are entire fields of study dedicated to each - their paths rarely cross. Hell, given your field of study, you'd know.

ishkabibble wrote:For example, having more hair on our head is seen as a favorable condition... so what are you and I still doing here...

Touche, friend.