honey totally kicks MRSA's ass and ancient egyptians used honey on their wounds and dressings for its anti septic qualities. Can't be too advanced if it gets its ass kicked by something we eat. BTW if you get an infection put honey on it and then keep it covered so it doesnt spread also wash your clothes and sheets and stuff.
I agree with Gojury3. You seem to have a few misconceptions about evolution. Number 1- Evolution Is not headed in a specific direction. It also seems you'd make a claim like, "Man is the pinnacle of Evolution." We are not THE result, we are A result. Evolution is dependent of the environment. Organisms are attempting to fill in niches, or spots for their particular ecosystem. You seem to have this view, that evolution evolves "Upward." In reality, it evolves in all directions.
The idea of improvement of organisms is a very Lamarkian view of evolution. While it may be true that MRSA can't reproduce as fast, it still is better suited for its environment, which is NOT a drug free one. Sir, what you're suggesting is analogous to saying that whales have taken a "side step" becasue they now can't survive on land. The idea of "advancement" doesn't apply to Darwinian evolution.
when you say "we" who do you actuly mean ? and then whats the "large genes " all about ??!?! human genes are not 1km long while ad ameba gene is 1cm.. come on , you must be kidding me... anyway if evolution had a goal , to lead to complexity , then why many organisms didn't get more and more complex ?
why did many organismis past from complex to more simple. ??!?! evolution has no goal , we are here by mear chance , so just enjoy the ride while it lasts anyway , think
it seems hard to explain ..but it's not ... think about the growing complexity of nature. think about the fact that some mutations made many animals live better in the new enviroment because of the complexity of the mutations. plus , you made a huge error , think about the ameba ,it has 760.000 genes .
while humans have 25.000 . now who is more complex ? and why? evolution has no objective what so evere,
plus , many evolved creatures are less complex then the one before
I agree; MRSA isn't an advance. But if evolution cannot account for progress, then what can? Clearly, progress has taken place somehow; look at how much more complex and sophisticated a chimpanzee is compared to, say, anaerobic organisms. (A chimp's mitochondria, for example, are by themselves almost equivalent to anaerobic organisms; then there is the entire rest of the chimp.) If evolution can't move anything forward, then where has the forward movement come from?
It is mathematically impossible for mutation to account for the level of diversity that exists and has existed on the planet. Try again. Your theory has been debunked.
oh yeah ? tell my by who ? give me one name at least .. who ? Kent Hovind ?
mathematically impossible uhm? do you even know what you talking about ? do ever heard about things like the cambrian explosion ? never the less , give me the name of at least one scientist who published a theory that tells that mutantions don't account for the diversity .. if you can't then wright a BIG," IN MY HUMBLE OPINION" first of your comments ..
Lee Strobel, for one. As for the "Cambrian Explosion," every time a person puts a hole in your theory, not a small hole, but a HUGE hole, you have to make another adjustment to your argument. There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. We should have found MILLIONS of bones from MILLIONS of animals in all stages leading from one step to the next to the next, etc. There aren't any.
btw, you're Lee Stobel... Southern Evangelical Seminary , isn't quite a scientific board is it ? maybe for you the Willow Creek Association , is just like American Science Comunity . but you see,science studies facts , and requires empirical proof, on the other hand , religious comunities, only deal with bronze age superstition, and no empirical proof what so ever, it implicates things like beliving withot whating a proof ..
so you see, Lee Strobel, can't say nothing against evolution
you don't seem to have any understanding of what the therm "scientist" means ,
it sure dosen't mean a jurnalist , or a preacher for MEGACHURCH ... come on don't give this rediculis stuff.
i don't invent anything to difend Evolution. try actualy going to a musem .. it will be fun .. you will see how we fund so many bones , from so many species,that you can't immagine.
by the way,you can't say that you are defending anything,you don't even have a scientific theory,or peer to peer reviws
Good response. 'Imrational' admitted that his Down's syndrome example was not good. The whole problem for evolutionism is that naturally occurring changes to genetic information result in the accumulation of defects that completely swamp any other changes that could somehow remotely be considered as adding genetic information (Down's syndrome as an example). This is de evolution, not evolution, the materialists have got it backwards.
Here's the whole problem with arguments against evolution that attach positive or negative outcomes to adaptation... There is no grand cosmic scale in nature measuring a positive or negative! Mutations are a constant happenstance the result of replication and entropy these mutations may "dead end" within a few generations or result in eons of "success", this success may eventually fail. There is no hand guiding this movement.
Again when attacking "evolution" it's funny that the attacks only work when the glacial pace of this phenomenon is brought within the confines of time, that are either biblical or hemmed in by human life. You cannot look at a 10,000 to 70,000 year process and say "I don't see any evidence" Your aperture is too narrow, and thus biased and does not allow for accurate observation.
Is the big problem with creationists, they are supposed to have arguments against evolution, yet they are not even able to understand basic concepts in that matter, most of them have a very basic education and are happy with only one book that will save their ignorant ass. How do you oppose a scientific fact?, if you don't get science at all?. Like people who is against transgenic food, yet they approve the use of insuline, wich is obviously, an achievement of genetic manipulation...
You are a good and confident speaker, but you apparently don't understand the subject (evolution). It should be remembered that evolution does not REPLACE god. Evolution is goal-less. By argueing against the efficacy of mutations (incidentally, just ONE of the agents through which evolution can manifest, environment change is another) to produce beneficial changes in an organism, it seems to me that you are argueing more against a designer, because a lot of pointless sideways shifting is what...
you would expect to see if changes in ecosystems and the types of creatures found in them was not goal-oriented.
The original question posed to Richard Dawkins was a bit of a red herring in my opinion anyway. "Information" is a tricky concept to pin down. Certain algorithms, such as the Life program and the Mandelbrot set provide illustrations both that very complex things can arise from simple rules, and that even infinite amounts of beauty can be created from very little input.
I wanted to note that your response didn't seem to challenge his points at all. Changing his point from "more resistant to treatment than before" to "so advanced it should have dominated the planet" is just a straw man argument. Being more resistant to antibiotics does not mean it's suddenly airborn and the other many requirements for what you are saying. Then you make an odd comparison between the number of cases and how fast bacteria reproduce. - As if there is a linear comparison to be made
And having finished your video the leaps seem to have continued. I can't tell if you are purposefully redefining terms/ideas or genuinely don't understand them. This is probably why you didn't get a response from him, but I encourage you to read more about these subjects!
Evolution simply means change- it doesn't have to be "moving" in a direction, whether it be forwards/backwards/sideways. Changes can occur in a species by meiosis or by mutations (either occuring during meiosis or during an individual's lifetime). You can see that these changes do not nec. lead to an "advanced" organism. Look at your family- brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, etc. Excluding identical twins, you are all DIFFERENT. Not all of these differences mean that one is better at
or more likely to survive than another (for example, my being taller, having green eyes and needing glasses will not make me any more/less likely to reproduce than my sister beig a shorter, brown eyed girl. IF I lived in a culture where green eyes were consided demonic/unattractive, then SEXUAL selection would say that my sister has a greater chance of having offspring than I would. If living in an environment where being taller gave me better access to better food from trees, I would live.
So, in that case, being tall would give me a survival advantage over being short (NATURAL selection- the environment dictating reproduction). If I continue with this line, eventually we'd get a population of taller ppl b.c height would be a survival advantage. This doesn't mean that no short people will be born- it's just that the average height will increase because of the environmental pressure.
Same idea with sickle cell anemia. This disease is more prevalent in malaria-ridden areas.
Sickle cell anemia is a homozygous recessive condition- meaning you need 2 recessive alleles to get the incredibly detrimental disease. People with only one allele do have some detrimental affects, in areas with malaria, these detrimental phenotypes do not outweigh the benefit of surviving malaria- hence, the people that carry this gene live to reproduce, passing this gene onto their offspring. In areas where malaria is not present, the gene is not advantageous to survival, so fewer cases of
sickle cell anemia exist. This does not mean that sickle cell anemia does not occur in areas without malaria. In north america, some of these symptoms can be treated, so the detrimental effects are not as pronounced. Basically, this trait is not nec. a life sentence, esp if it's heterozygous in the environment of North America.
The mersa(spelling?) bacteria is spreading. That's all we need to know. 10 years is a VERY short time in means of evolution. Give it another million years, and the mersa bacteria can have evolved to an advanced organism.
And evolution is not about dominating the planet, it is simply about surviving until something else comes and takes your place. Mersa isn't resistant to everything else in the world, that's why it hasn't "dominated" the planet. This is evolution in it's essence...
continuing... If this bacteria isn't wiped out completely it continues to evolve. Everything that doesn't kill it makes it stronger, quite litterally. What creationists must embrace is that humans isn't the greatest species on earth. Life in general doesn't revolve around humans. We have no destiny to conquer all other creatures and live forever...
continue2... There is still bacteria that can kill us, which means those species has a bigger chance than us to survive in the long run, and hence evolve into something even greater. This is where our intelligence comes into place. We have EVOLVED into intelligent people, so we can create cures and combat the species that are a threat to our exitence. Where the tiger has big fangs to protect it, we have a great intelligence. Don't you understand the principal of this?
fgullman, 10 years is a short time for many species, but bacteria can peel off a new generation every twenty minutes to an hour. By comparison, it takes humans about twenty years. Looking at it that way, 10 years for bacteria are like 3 million years for us people. Now, three million years ago, Homo sapiens didn't even exist. We have since out-competed all other members of our genus...
So 10 years is plenty of time for MRSA to have dominated the bacteria world, were it actually superior to other bacteria. It isn't superior, and it hasn't acheived dominance. It thrives in its one particular (and artificial) niche, but nowhere else.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say (I'm swedish so my english isn't perfect), but even though MRSA isn't superior to other bacteria, it still lives. As I said before, evolution doesn't move towards some superior race that simply can not be killed. There is always something else that will take it's place, it's just a matter of time. To thrive in it's one particular niche is enough for it to not get whiped of the planet. If a species has no enemies, it will live on until it...
By the way, do you believe in evolution or creationism FerdinandVFriedrich?
(Also, I'm sorry if I went completely off topic. I have no idea what the MRSA bacteria is, and I'm not english. Plus It was so long ago I was part of this debate, I kind of forgot the subject :P I'm just trying to explain the principal of evolution)
Yeh: God knows what things need to survive. We(including the clever)are found pathetically inadequate in trying to explain it. Micro evolution protects spieces in those ways that God has forseen they need. Macro evolution is a whole different thing: A mouse is not going to change into a bear....be serious. When We dissobey Him that made Us; then We get the problems: We have these dissorders that pull on Us to make us oversex, overeat, overpleasure etc....at the expense of fulfilling Our purpose.
Scale and Balence.... look at every living thing, they are all Beautiful examples of life moving forward to be 100% perfect in there environment. i think you should watch the Lion King again. Life is a system. competition keeps things weak and complex.
Sideways steps are also a way for species to move forward. When there is a problem, nature tries many different ways to solve the problem. The best ways get picked up and evolved, and the less successful ones get lost through the generations. There are often trade-offs made for certain advantages (e.g. - interlocking teeth mean you only get 2 sets your entire lifetime).
There, very simply put, is not enough time in 3.5 billion years of life's recorded history for all the traits to arise in the basic phyla of organisms, in such "rapid" succession. Ferdinand has made a good point: a gene will not be favored by natural selection based on how it deals with one specific disease or other threat. It will be favored based on how it contributes to the survival of the organism and population as a whole. Thanks for pointing this out, Ferdinand.
you dont know how long 3.5 billion years is i think. its plenty of time for anything thing to happen. but as far as a gene mutation being favored by environment and not by how it deals with traits... thats very true and its a good point.
honey totally kicks MRSA's ass and ancient egyptians used honey on their wounds and dressings for its anti septic qualities. Can't be too advanced if it gets its ass kicked by something we eat. BTW if you get an infection put honey on it and then keep it covered so it doesnt spread also wash your clothes and sheets and stuff.
johanneskind 2 years ago
Ignorant. Just plain ignorant!
bushgirlsgonewild 2 years ago
I agree with Gojury3. You seem to have a few misconceptions about evolution. Number 1- Evolution Is not headed in a specific direction. It also seems you'd make a claim like, "Man is the pinnacle of Evolution." We are not THE result, we are A result. Evolution is dependent of the environment. Organisms are attempting to fill in niches, or spots for their particular ecosystem. You seem to have this view, that evolution evolves "Upward." In reality, it evolves in all directions.
darrbare 2 years ago
You clearly don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about, you would be better as a character on Fargo where I suspect you originated!
comanchio1976 2 years ago
Macro evolution is a series of many micro evolutions. It takes lot of time.
daobagua 2 years ago
Ummm. Wow this guy is retarded.
daobagua 2 years ago
Complexity arises coincidentally as a result of POPULATIONS, not organisms, being increasingly better adapted for their environments over time.
gojuryu3 2 years ago
The idea of improvement of organisms is a very Lamarkian view of evolution. While it may be true that MRSA can't reproduce as fast, it still is better suited for its environment, which is NOT a drug free one. Sir, what you're suggesting is analogous to saying that whales have taken a "side step" becasue they now can't survive on land. The idea of "advancement" doesn't apply to Darwinian evolution.
gojuryu3 2 years ago
when you say "we" who do you actuly mean ? and then whats the "large genes " all about ??!?! human genes are not 1km long while ad ameba gene is 1cm.. come on , you must be kidding me... anyway if evolution had a goal , to lead to complexity , then why many organisms didn't get more and more complex ?
why did many organismis past from complex to more simple. ??!?! evolution has no goal , we are here by mear chance , so just enjoy the ride while it lasts anyway , think
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
it seems hard to explain ..but it's not ... think about the growing complexity of nature. think about the fact that some mutations made many animals live better in the new enviroment because of the complexity of the mutations. plus , you made a huge error , think about the ameba ,it has 760.000 genes .
while humans have 25.000 . now who is more complex ? and why? evolution has no objective what so evere,
plus , many evolved creatures are less complex then the one before
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
evolution is not PROGRESS !!! evolution works through mutations , some work , most don't.
if a mutation works , it makes you more adapted. it doesn't imply progress !!
evolution doesn't move forward !!!! please , read something about evolution before taking a position like that
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
I agree; MRSA isn't an advance. But if evolution cannot account for progress, then what can? Clearly, progress has taken place somehow; look at how much more complex and sophisticated a chimpanzee is compared to, say, anaerobic organisms. (A chimp's mitochondria, for example, are by themselves almost equivalent to anaerobic organisms; then there is the entire rest of the chimp.) If evolution can't move anything forward, then where has the forward movement come from?
FerdinandVFriedrich 2 years ago
It is mathematically impossible for mutation to account for the level of diversity that exists and has existed on the planet. Try again. Your theory has been debunked.
ampat71 2 years ago
oh yeah ? tell my by who ? give me one name at least .. who ? Kent Hovind ?
mathematically impossible uhm? do you even know what you talking about ? do ever heard about things like the cambrian explosion ? never the less , give me the name of at least one scientist who published a theory that tells that mutantions don't account for the diversity .. if you can't then wright a BIG," IN MY HUMBLE OPINION" first of your comments ..
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
Lee Strobel, for one. As for the "Cambrian Explosion," every time a person puts a hole in your theory, not a small hole, but a HUGE hole, you have to make another adjustment to your argument. There is NO EVIDENCE for evolution. We should have found MILLIONS of bones from MILLIONS of animals in all stages leading from one step to the next to the next, etc. There aren't any.
ampat71 2 years ago
By the way, it is "write" not "wright," and I've never heard anyone defending evolution with an "IMHO"
ampat71 2 years ago
btw, you're Lee Stobel... Southern Evangelical Seminary , isn't quite a scientific board is it ? maybe for you the Willow Creek Association , is just like American Science Comunity . but you see,science studies facts , and requires empirical proof, on the other hand , religious comunities, only deal with bronze age superstition, and no empirical proof what so ever, it implicates things like beliving withot whating a proof ..
so you see, Lee Strobel, can't say nothing against evolution
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
Yeah, I know. I just wanted you to see the videos, which you probably ignored, but I did my best to show you truth.
ampat71 2 years ago
you don't seem to have any understanding of what the therm "scientist" means ,
it sure dosen't mean a jurnalist , or a preacher for MEGACHURCH ... come on don't give this rediculis stuff.
i don't invent anything to difend Evolution. try actualy going to a musem .. it will be fun .. you will see how we fund so many bones , from so many species,that you can't immagine.
by the way,you can't say that you are defending anything,you don't even have a scientific theory,or peer to peer reviws
AnarchyAlleyCat 2 years ago
Good response. 'Imrational' admitted that his Down's syndrome example was not good. The whole problem for evolutionism is that naturally occurring changes to genetic information result in the accumulation of defects that completely swamp any other changes that could somehow remotely be considered as adding genetic information (Down's syndrome as an example). This is de evolution, not evolution, the materialists have got it backwards.
BrianRIrwin 2 years ago
youre confused. heres the definition of evolution:
"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
it isnt inherently beneficial. its basically, change -- it can be good or bad.
Pelonetillo 2 years ago
Two days????? They are not the Borg.
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Here's the whole problem with arguments against evolution that attach positive or negative outcomes to adaptation... There is no grand cosmic scale in nature measuring a positive or negative! Mutations are a constant happenstance the result of replication and entropy these mutations may "dead end" within a few generations or result in eons of "success", this success may eventually fail. There is no hand guiding this movement.
TheFallenWon 3 years ago 3
well said
Hematemesis 3 years ago
Again when attacking "evolution" it's funny that the attacks only work when the glacial pace of this phenomenon is brought within the confines of time, that are either biblical or hemmed in by human life. You cannot look at a 10,000 to 70,000 year process and say "I don't see any evidence" Your aperture is too narrow, and thus biased and does not allow for accurate observation.
TheFallenWon 3 years ago
Is the big problem with creationists, they are supposed to have arguments against evolution, yet they are not even able to understand basic concepts in that matter, most of them have a very basic education and are happy with only one book that will save their ignorant ass. How do you oppose a scientific fact?, if you don't get science at all?. Like people who is against transgenic food, yet they approve the use of insuline, wich is obviously, an achievement of genetic manipulation...
Hematemesis 3 years ago
You are a good and confident speaker, but you apparently don't understand the subject (evolution). It should be remembered that evolution does not REPLACE god. Evolution is goal-less. By argueing against the efficacy of mutations (incidentally, just ONE of the agents through which evolution can manifest, environment change is another) to produce beneficial changes in an organism, it seems to me that you are argueing more against a designer, because a lot of pointless sideways shifting is what...
tepidd 3 years ago
you would expect to see if changes in ecosystems and the types of creatures found in them was not goal-oriented.
The original question posed to Richard Dawkins was a bit of a red herring in my opinion anyway. "Information" is a tricky concept to pin down. Certain algorithms, such as the Life program and the Mandelbrot set provide illustrations both that very complex things can arise from simple rules, and that even infinite amounts of beauty can be created from very little input.
tepidd 3 years ago
I wanted to note that your response didn't seem to challenge his points at all. Changing his point from "more resistant to treatment than before" to "so advanced it should have dominated the planet" is just a straw man argument. Being more resistant to antibiotics does not mean it's suddenly airborn and the other many requirements for what you are saying. Then you make an odd comparison between the number of cases and how fast bacteria reproduce. - As if there is a linear comparison to be made
digiring 3 years ago
And having finished your video the leaps seem to have continued. I can't tell if you are purposefully redefining terms/ideas or genuinely don't understand them. This is probably why you didn't get a response from him, but I encourage you to read more about these subjects!
digiring 3 years ago
it may have taken 10 years for the amount of MRSA infections to double, but that's only because it's been contained by human influence?
surely if it were left on it's own it would be causing a lot more problems
iwokethedevil 3 years ago
Evolution simply means change- it doesn't have to be "moving" in a direction, whether it be forwards/backwards/sideways. Changes can occur in a species by meiosis or by mutations (either occuring during meiosis or during an individual's lifetime). You can see that these changes do not nec. lead to an "advanced" organism. Look at your family- brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, etc. Excluding identical twins, you are all DIFFERENT. Not all of these differences mean that one is better at
obscureashell 3 years ago
or more likely to survive than another (for example, my being taller, having green eyes and needing glasses will not make me any more/less likely to reproduce than my sister beig a shorter, brown eyed girl. IF I lived in a culture where green eyes were consided demonic/unattractive, then SEXUAL selection would say that my sister has a greater chance of having offspring than I would. If living in an environment where being taller gave me better access to better food from trees, I would live.
obscureashell 3 years ago
So, in that case, being tall would give me a survival advantage over being short (NATURAL selection- the environment dictating reproduction). If I continue with this line, eventually we'd get a population of taller ppl b.c height would be a survival advantage. This doesn't mean that no short people will be born- it's just that the average height will increase because of the environmental pressure.
Same idea with sickle cell anemia. This disease is more prevalent in malaria-ridden areas.
obscureashell 3 years ago
Sickle cell anemia is a homozygous recessive condition- meaning you need 2 recessive alleles to get the incredibly detrimental disease. People with only one allele do have some detrimental affects, in areas with malaria, these detrimental phenotypes do not outweigh the benefit of surviving malaria- hence, the people that carry this gene live to reproduce, passing this gene onto their offspring. In areas where malaria is not present, the gene is not advantageous to survival, so fewer cases of
obscureashell 3 years ago
sickle cell anemia exist. This does not mean that sickle cell anemia does not occur in areas without malaria. In north america, some of these symptoms can be treated, so the detrimental effects are not as pronounced. Basically, this trait is not nec. a life sentence, esp if it's heterozygous in the environment of North America.
obscureashell 3 years ago
The mersa(spelling?) bacteria is spreading. That's all we need to know. 10 years is a VERY short time in means of evolution. Give it another million years, and the mersa bacteria can have evolved to an advanced organism.
And evolution is not about dominating the planet, it is simply about surviving until something else comes and takes your place. Mersa isn't resistant to everything else in the world, that's why it hasn't "dominated" the planet. This is evolution in it's essence...
fgullman 3 years ago
continuing... If this bacteria isn't wiped out completely it continues to evolve. Everything that doesn't kill it makes it stronger, quite litterally. What creationists must embrace is that humans isn't the greatest species on earth. Life in general doesn't revolve around humans. We have no destiny to conquer all other creatures and live forever...
fgullman 3 years ago
continue2... There is still bacteria that can kill us, which means those species has a bigger chance than us to survive in the long run, and hence evolve into something even greater. This is where our intelligence comes into place. We have EVOLVED into intelligent people, so we can create cures and combat the species that are a threat to our exitence. Where the tiger has big fangs to protect it, we have a great intelligence. Don't you understand the principal of this?
fgullman 3 years ago
fgullman, 10 years is a short time for many species, but bacteria can peel off a new generation every twenty minutes to an hour. By comparison, it takes humans about twenty years. Looking at it that way, 10 years for bacteria are like 3 million years for us people. Now, three million years ago, Homo sapiens didn't even exist. We have since out-competed all other members of our genus...
FerdinandVFriedrich 3 years ago
So 10 years is plenty of time for MRSA to have dominated the bacteria world, were it actually superior to other bacteria. It isn't superior, and it hasn't acheived dominance. It thrives in its one particular (and artificial) niche, but nowhere else.
Thanks for weighing in!
FerdinandVFriedrich 3 years ago
I don't really understand what you are trying to say (I'm swedish so my english isn't perfect), but even though MRSA isn't superior to other bacteria, it still lives. As I said before, evolution doesn't move towards some superior race that simply can not be killed. There is always something else that will take it's place, it's just a matter of time. To thrive in it's one particular niche is enough for it to not get whiped of the planet. If a species has no enemies, it will live on until it...
fgullman 3 years ago
... gets some.
By the way, do you believe in evolution or creationism FerdinandVFriedrich?
(Also, I'm sorry if I went completely off topic. I have no idea what the MRSA bacteria is, and I'm not english. Plus It was so long ago I was part of this debate, I kind of forgot the subject :P I'm just trying to explain the principal of evolution)
Thank you too sir!
fgullman 3 years ago
Yeh: God knows what things need to survive. We(including the clever)are found pathetically inadequate in trying to explain it. Micro evolution protects spieces in those ways that God has forseen they need. Macro evolution is a whole different thing: A mouse is not going to change into a bear....be serious. When We dissobey Him that made Us; then We get the problems: We have these dissorders that pull on Us to make us oversex, overeat, overpleasure etc....at the expense of fulfilling Our purpose.
Getinnnn 3 years ago
Scale and Balence.... look at every living thing, they are all Beautiful examples of life moving forward to be 100% perfect in there environment. i think you should watch the Lion King again. Life is a system. competition keeps things weak and complex.
Dracanic 3 years ago
Sideways steps are also a way for species to move forward. When there is a problem, nature tries many different ways to solve the problem. The best ways get picked up and evolved, and the less successful ones get lost through the generations. There are often trade-offs made for certain advantages (e.g. - interlocking teeth mean you only get 2 sets your entire lifetime).
Atriviality 3 years ago
There, very simply put, is not enough time in 3.5 billion years of life's recorded history for all the traits to arise in the basic phyla of organisms, in such "rapid" succession. Ferdinand has made a good point: a gene will not be favored by natural selection based on how it deals with one specific disease or other threat. It will be favored based on how it contributes to the survival of the organism and population as a whole. Thanks for pointing this out, Ferdinand.
Raptorman117 3 years ago
you dont know how long 3.5 billion years is i think. its plenty of time for anything thing to happen. but as far as a gene mutation being favored by environment and not by how it deals with traits... thats very true and its a good point.
Dracanic 3 years ago