Evolution: Yea or nay?

submitted by xoenix from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Gravi 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I would say evolution is real, there's just a lot of evidence and religion overall is just closing your eyes and believing in it.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Says the Neanderthal.

[–]Gravi 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Cry about it.

Piece of advice, if you got nothing better to say, it's often better to shut up.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

lol - proves my point

[–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm guessing you're the one flagging every single post that disagrees with you, huh?

[–]Gravi 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wat

[–]package 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept of the manifestation of beneficial traits in response to environmental changes? If for instance a population of humans was distributed into two separate environments with one being a paradise and the other being a cold barren expanse where the only sources of food are eagles and slightly toxic berries, would it not be reasonable to assume that the latter population would over many generations become resistant to the berries, have better eyesight and coordination to handle ranged weapons, and potentially smaller brains and bodies due to the scarcity of food?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept of the manifestation of beneficial traits in response to environmental changes?

Darwin agreed with with this, arguing with previous scholars who attributed evolution to environmental changes. Hence his use of their material and the material he collected at sea to argue that competition for resources were central to evolutionary change. A century later, sociobiologists tried to focus on genes as central to evolutionary change. Rejecting that, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge wrote more reliable theories regarding punctuated equilibrium as the best way to incorporate the complexity of factors that are central to environmental change.

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense; environmental change, including competition for resources, creates selection pressure that favors certain traits over others and genes are how traits are encoded. They aren't competing theories. Similarly, punctuated equilibrium is simply a theory of how rapidly changes manifest in a population, not a rejection of gene theory.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes - that's a list of theories

environmental change, including competition for resources

Two different theories about what's central to environmental change