By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 10 September 2010
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You assume this and it's a nice theory but there's no evidence of that in the article.

The only mechanism needed to explain the observations presented in the article is the one I provided.

When it's hot you take your shirt off, when it's cold you keep it on.

It is the mechanism, but the mechanism will lead to an evolution. You either assume one of two things with this statement if you believe evolution to be false

1. That successful traits aren't passed on from generation to generation, or

2. Regardless of the advantage a trait gives, the survival and birth rates between the unfit and the fit are the same.

Now you say that I have no evidence on my side. I have plenty of evidence on my side. The unfit do not survive, the fit do. This is a fact of life. All traits are hereditary, and only the fit survive to pass on the traits (link). It's called natural selection (it's a famous idea y'know) and it's an extremely well documented process and the evidence overwhelmingly abundant.

Natural selection is clearly at work here, it's blindingly obvious.

Can you prove to me that genes aren't hereditary? Because that's basically the linchpin your argument hangs on.

So if I retain my clothes on in October when it's cold here in Sweden you take that as a sign of evolution?

It is not blindingly obvious that natural selection is at work here. You are just assuming that.

Your analogy is wrong Slimebeast, why? Because the ability to provide warmth for oneself is an inheritable trait, and those that are able to provide warmth for themselves  better are less likely to freeze to death and not reproduce. (For what it's worth you might as well be arguing that "dogs grow coats, therefore evolution is false", when the dogs with the thick coats in cold climate are more likely to survive). Natural selection is beyond well documented and has been known for over 150 years (and subconsciously even longer, with selective breeding).

I am by no means "assuming" this, I know. And this is just another case of this process, just another case of the peppered moth.

Your whole argument rests on the notion that genetic traits aren't inheritable. So what is it? Are these traits not inheritable?