Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flareofdragon
Alright, I thought you went through the links, I was kind of pissed when you were arguing about the already proven subject. However, now we can debate more logically.
|
Sounds fair! ^_^
Quote:
Ok, now, the moths are only shown to show two different genes, black and white colored. For many years, most moths that people saw were white, as the black moths were eaten by birds (Its more visible, thus more birds are going to notice these black moths more than white moths). The number of white moths was very large, and they probably would have evolved so that there would be no black moths.
However, since the trees became painted black through soot, the black moths became less visible and white moths were more visible. The result was that birds noticed white moths easier and ate them. Black moths, being eaten less, reproduced more frequently. Thus through the decrease of the white moths and an increasement of black moths, the black moths reached 95% of the population. It just makes sense
|
That I understand. It's how the scientist who wrote that article phrased it that made me disbelieve it. Because first they're talking about black/white moths in General. Then they go to the ones in Manchester city.
Quote:
|
It means that although the idea itself seems very attainable, we have not been able to do so yet through the pre-life era of the earth.
|
Gotcha! ^_^
Quote:
|
Adaptation is different from evolution, this is true. Adaptation is not related to hereditary genes, like evolution is (although genes are the prevalent force). But I am using this in the sense that species that can adapt to the changing environment better will become part of their evolution. Species that cannot adapt will be wiped out.
|
Finally someone at least semi-agrees with me on this matter.
You are right. Thats what evolution is.
Quote:
|
Oh okay, it seemed like you did.
|
Sorry for coming off that way.
Quote:
|
What you are troubling over is also a very delicate issue (it confuses most biologists). See, the body seems to be able to delete unneeded genes, how it is done is still not found. But basically, if the trait is not used often enough, the gene is erased. It happens to appendix (digesting plants), it is happening to the wisdom teeth (grinding plants), and it looks like its going to happen to goosebumps (used to raise hair up when the ancestors had fur). That is probably what happened to the tail, and its still not completely deleted. Its called the tailbone.
|
Do you know, personally, when the tail-bone was classified as that in official human anatomy?
Quote:
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus
|
The link brought me to some weird site that didn't have anything interesting.
Quote:
But earth's age is debatable. If you are working with earth being 8 thousand years old, then there is a lot of problems that you have to cover.
And although theory are not 100% fact, scientifical theories are pretty close to it. There has not been one fact that goes against evolution (otherwise it would not be a theory).
|
It is debateable, yes. But the timeline in the Bible seems to be a bit more accurate, seeing everything in there is technically a written record, so that's what I base my theories of the Earth's age off of.