| | |
Theory of Evolution - argument for/against
![]() |
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 0
This is completely meaningless...
Although I am not majoring in biology, I am sure that EVOLUTION MUST WORK.
Let's suppose
1. that there is a 'replicator'.
2. 'offsprings' of the 'replicator' displays 'polymorphism' in their 'phenotype'.
3. offsprings with different phenotype has different probability to successfully produce their own offsprings.
Then, the ones with better phenotype (and, in case of carbon-based organisms on the Earth, genes) will win over their competitors (alleles), although those winners are still imperfect, and the influx of new replicators (genes) and the change of the environment are ceaseless. (Sorry for my English skill.) As a result, their will be an incessant shift in the frequencies of genes in the gene pool. This is what we call evolution, right? Then, if we are sure that the presumptions I stated above are true, why do we have to have doubt aboutit?
Although I am not majoring in biology, I am sure that EVOLUTION MUST WORK.
Let's suppose
1. that there is a 'replicator'.
2. 'offsprings' of the 'replicator' displays 'polymorphism' in their 'phenotype'.
3. offsprings with different phenotype has different probability to successfully produce their own offsprings.
Then, the ones with better phenotype (and, in case of carbon-based organisms on the Earth, genes) will win over their competitors (alleles), although those winners are still imperfect, and the influx of new replicators (genes) and the change of the environment are ceaseless. (Sorry for my English skill.) As a result, their will be an incessant shift in the frequencies of genes in the gene pool. This is what we call evolution, right? Then, if we are sure that the presumptions I stated above are true, why do we have to have doubt aboutit?
This thread looked like it was going to die - here is some life support:
•
•
•
•
evolutionary biologists and other members of the Coalition of the Sane have done the following very well:
1. Calling creationists f*cking morons (because they are).
2. Arguing that a better understanding of how life evolved is good in and of itself, and can imbue us with a certain sense of wonder.
3. Refuting specific creationist claims.
These are necessary, but not sufficient. What we rarely do is make an affirmative, positive argument for evolution (as opposed to against creationism). I proposed one particular argument: we can't do applied medical genomics at all without using evolutionary theory and tools. There are many other examples that can be made (I merely chose this one because I know it rather well).
The other thing we evolutionary biologists don't do enough of, and this stems from the previous point, is make an emotional and moral case for the study of evolution. Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Buckingham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"
My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him." [1]
Last edited by GrimJack; Jan 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 am. Reason: I know that I broke my own rule but....
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
•
•
•
•
Where by merlin's beard would evolution have started from dear grumpier, nothing comes from nothing if nothing existed what would have evolved
•
•
•
•
The oscillator representation is used for the non-perturbative description of vacuum particle creation in a strong time-dependent electric field in the framework of scalar QED. It is shown that the method can be more effective for the derivation of the quantum kinetic equation (KE) in comparison with the Bogoliubov method of time-dependent canonical transformations. This KE is used for the investigation of vacuum creation in periodical linear and circular polarized electric fields and also in the case of the presence of a constant magnetic field, including the back reaction problem. In particular, these examples are applied for a model illustration of some features of vacuum creation of electron-positron plasma within the planned experiments on the X-ray free electron lasers.
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
![]() |
Similar Threads
- Collins: Why this scientist believes in God (Geeks' Lounge)
- Evolution: Science vs. Religion (Geeks' Lounge)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Helpminutes left! from a desperate mom!
- Next Thread: Happy new Year to All
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Tag cloud for Geeks' Lounge
apple article bankruptcy beard beijing books children clocks code cognitive_disorder comedy complaint console consoles cracked.com daniweb design development disk election empty facebook financialcrisis fun games gaming garbage google grandtheftauto gta halo3 hardware hunting internet java kids kindle king knife library life linux mad manly marketing mars merger microsoft ms murder netbook networking news nintendo obama odf opinion os outlook pain parenting planning playstation ps3 ps4 research rss search security sims software sony source space stocks study subversion survey systems tablet thelostanddamned time timeisonmyside. unsolved unused usarmy vapid videogames viruses wakoopa wave wii windows windows>all world wow www xbox xbox360 zomg_conspiracy






