An example of natural selection

For 9th grade general biology: A very brief example of natural selection for high school students.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Science
• biology
• evolution
• natural selection
• Mr. Biology
• Mr. Matthews
• rabbits
• arctic hare

[wecantsee]

@daogdaog Are you sure you know much about this thing and 100% refuse to accept the theory? Or are you one of those who hopes that the theory is wrong and completely turn to the god-theory for a more comfortable explanation?

[villontre]

The arctic hare is distributed over the tundra regions of Greenland and the northernmost parts of Canada. Towards the south of its range, the arctic hare changes its coat colour, moulting and growing new fur, from brown or grey in the summer to white in the winter.

This video is just storytelling, there is nothing factual about it in its content other than pure speculation. Hares and other types of animals are able to change the color of their coat in order to blend in depending on the season.

[paradigmentropy]

@daogdaog So what you're saying is that there is currently no selective pressure being asserted on giraffes that would cause them to develop longer necks. Please show me your evidence that this has always been the case, that there has never been a competitive advantage in being able to reach higher foilage.

The argument about the lack of gradually transforming fossil records is something akin to arguing that a low frame rate video of a car blowing a red light isn't proof of a traffic violation.

[daogdaog]

@paradigmentropy Fossil records cannot account for gradual transformation of four legged short necked animals by mutation into a giraffe. That is why some biologists proposed a theory called sexual selection.Evolution did not happen. Four legged short necked animals can reach higher vegetation to survive. Research has found out that giraffes normally feed on vegetation a meter or two above the ground.

[paradigmentropy]

@daogdaog BTW, there are fossil records of short-necked giraffes. There are also ongoing discovering taking place of further intermediary species. Pointing to any living species and going, "WHERE'S THE TRANSITIONARY SPECIE'S FOSSILS?!" is just as unintelligible as me pointing to cell phones and screaming, "WHY AREN'T CELL PHONES IN THE BIBLE?!" That there is, as of now, a lack of fossil evidence for transitionary species for SOME animals does not automatically prove the antecedent true.

[paradigmentropy]

@daogdaog I tried searching for your suggested video and got a bunch of links to videos of goats in trees (no explanation for how this disproves evolution). Could it be that there are different KINDS of trees, some that are less climbable than others? Evolutionary theory can and does account for the anomalous length of the giraffe's neck. That you've not found proof of that species that preceded giraffes does not automatically prove the theory wrong.

[daogdaog]

@paradigmentropy The issue here is whether evolution has any scientific basis at all. Evolutionists for a long time have been making up stories. They cannot even account how giraffe's got its long neck. Do you have fossils to account for gradual increase in giraffe's neck? watch youtube "goats in a tree" that showed four legged animals had no need to evolve into a giraffe to survive.

[paradigmentropy]

@daogdaog What that means is, even if we were able to refute Darwin's theory of evolution by introducing some new, incompatible observation, it just means we need a better model to represent the observations. Creationism is not scientific, in any regard. Why is it that you're so content to utilize technology produced by SCIENCE, like the internet, yet you're adamantly opposed to the idea of evolution as a scientific theory? Cite your sources or admit you're making shit up.

[paradigmentropy]

@daogdaog Oh, so you mean: it's not possible that scientists don't yet know how selection pressures changed over the course of 250 millions of years, it's not possible that the design of the experiment was flawed, the evolutionary pressures that selected the traits of the first bacterium magically disappeared because higher species evolved, BUT it IS CERTAIN that Darwin's theory was wrong?

Science is observation based. An invalidated theory does not invalidate the observation.

[daogdaog]

@JulkerReviews Are you drunk again? If you make some comments have a point. Dont talk random. I really think you need to see your doctor.