By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 22 October 2013
Edit Thread
orniletter said:
OooSnap said:
 

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

 

If the conditions in which the species lived didn´t change over the years and it is already highly specialised...No, it wont change ! Mutations are the basis of Evolution, random errors in the DNA that may cause nothing at all....or something big.

When an single individual in a see of other individuals gains a special positive characteristic through a mutation, it is more likely that this single individual will survive and reproduce more often than the other animals without the new characteristic, the children of the mutant will give the special characteristic to their own children (which themself will have an advantage over the other animals)

...when a mutation has a negative effect, the opposite happens: The individual is less likely to survive/ give it´s DNA to the next generation

 

If a species is already highly specialised to certain condiditions and it´s ecological niche isn´t changed over the course of 500 million years it  won´t evolve

 

No, this is no condradiction, living fossils are evidence in favour of the evolution theorie (survival of those who fit the best)

Would we really not expect the ecological environment to change over that period of time? I thinks it's going to change regardless. The question is whether the change is relevant to the species and results in it's genes/DNA being passed on to the next generation. My concern, and this is just dawning on me, would be how to actually theoretically model the ecological environment in such a way as to produce a prediction.

I do some work in Political Science, and one big problem is modeling historical context, the big question being whether we actually have the ability to predict context, rather than just assuming it in our models. Based on what you're saying and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in order to completely explain evolution, we also need to be able to completely explain the environment within which these organisims live (eg. weather, temperature, food resources, etc.), which gets complicated very quickly.

Basically, we would need to be able to generate predictions about future conditions before we could generate future predictions about evolutionary processes, and this would require something more along the lines of a unified "theory of everything".