By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
hsrob on 13 May 2009
Edit Thread
MrBubbles said:
highwaystar101 said:
MrBubbles said:
trunkswd said:
I live in the USA, am an Atheist and yes I do because there is more than enough evidence. Just look at the H1N1 Influenza and the pests that use to be killed by pesticides that have evolved a resistance to them.

 

you just killed off the ones that werent resistant...that IS evolution

FIXD

Evolution is the survival of the fittest, which means the ones best adapted to the environment survive and pass on their genes. If all the ones that were resistant got to live then the next generation and so on will be 100% resistant, that is the very definition of evolution.

The strong have passed on their genes, the weak have not

 

no...they didnt adapt at all.  there was no change.  they are still what they always were.

 

I didn't respond to this post immediately as i didn't want it to appear that i was just jumping in to beat MrBubbles down in the arguement.

Having said that i want to clear up what evolution by natural selection, the theory that i assume most evolutionists are referring to, means.

I will preface this by saying of course things don't happen in such an extreme fashion that we can easily observe it within our own life times.  I have not made this as an entirely factually accurate treatise on evolution and i know have ignored many factors which complicate this issue immensely but this is my basic explanation.

Evolution by natural selection does not imply that a creature or species changes in order to better deal with the environment and this is where many people who don't believe in evolution make their mistake.

Natural selection supposes that there is a wide range of minor genetic variation within a species.  Much of this variation may have no effect on the likelihood of the organism surviving to reproductive age, but some of it may.

For example, it is not unreasonable to assume that in the vast array of genes that encode for antibodies involved in the immune process, there are some people in the world who can produce antibodies that confir immunity to HIV.  Now these genes may have been there for 1000's of years quietly serving no purpose or they may have arisen more recently due to mutations (which happen constantly) in the genes for antibodies.

Prior to HIV existing, and assuming they had no adverse effect on survival, these genes can quietly be passed from generation, with the proportion (let's say 10%) of people with these genes neither increasing or decreasing.

Now let's assume we get a worldwide pandemic of HIV, perhaps HIV mutates to a form that is much more easily transmissable and unfortunately with 100% mortality in people without immunity.  Let's say that within 10 years we lose 2/3 of all people who lack the immunity to HIV. Now in our population 25% of people are immune to HIV and 75% still aren't.  Within another 10 years we lose another 2/3 of those without immunity; now we have a population that is 50% immune and 50% not.  Within 50 years, given the parameters of 100% mortality we now have a human race that is ~99% immune to HIV.

The human race has now evolved from the form that existed 50 years prior, they have all the attributes they previously had and now are also immune to HIV.  This is evolution by natural selection.