<p>
</p>
<p>And those with the less useful allele sets are weeded out by natural selection, so that over time the less useful alleles decrease in frequency and the more useful alleles increase in frequency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true. But it cannot facilitate the retention of mutations that do not yet exist. Thus mutation is the only mechanism which produces new alleles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your point. You seem to be missing my point, which is that the mutations required to produce a new creature are not so simple that a single mutation towards the goal will be retained. A functional trait that would grant a survival advantage would, in the vast majority of cases, require multiple mutations in sequence before it had a significant effect on survival value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have other evidence that supports your theory, why did you choose to post this particular example, which doesn’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this not exactly what I said?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly: the organism is trending towards destruction, not greater complexity. In some exceptional cases this loss of function is beneficial, and is therefore preserved, which allows downward speciation to occur.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have we ever seen this happen?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m glad you’re amused mifune… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By my count this is the third time you haven’t supported this statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geocentricism was first proposed as a scientific theory by the Greeks several hundred years before Christ was born. Do you think that they were getting their belief from the Bible?</p>
<p>It was based on the objective findings that the earth was spherical and that the celestial bodies were observed to cross the sky in a cyclical manner. Later, more precise observations found flaws in the theory, causing it to eventually be discarded.</p>
<p>
By a Catholic priest who was also a scientist, showing the contributions of those who accept both science and religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true, I should have left that one off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As should be everything in science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As did Geocentricism, Spontaneous Generation, and Caloric Theory.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly.</p>
<p>Mifune, have you studied the Bible?</p>
<p>lulz random, but I did a project on alchemy, and phlogiston theory figured very strongly in it, and I got it mixed up with Caloric theory just now</p>
<p>Come on guys; you were supposed to argue with my posts!</p>
<p>Good points MosbyMarion. I do respect Hawking’s abilities as a physicist, but he should stay away from philosophy / claiming things about theology by using physics as evidence, which seems to me to be what he is doing. I do admire his perseverance and mathematical skill, but philosophically he’s a moron. Frankly.</p>
<p>Clarifying: Religion, particularly Catholicism since that’s what I have the most knowledge of, when followed truly seems to me to give more happiness than science, which deals in mundane facts and does not have anything to do with the why of life. </p>
<p>I’ll leave the debate to you. You understand the science behind this far better than me :).</p>
<p>^Pfft. MM with an understanding of science? He probably has the most dishonest understanding of science that I’ve ever witnessed. </p>
<p>I’m surprised mifune is willing to waste his time at harvard responding to such deluded simpleminded people who know nothing about evidence. Takes a ton of patience.</p>
<p>Theory of evolution was created by the Illuminati. kthxbai.</p>
<p>Simply because a theory provides a believable explanation of it’s subject does not necessarily make it valid (Caloric theory is a prime example of this). That being said, the theory of evolution has survived almost 150 years of scientific scrutiny, unlike what what creationists (e.g. Harun Yahya, who mifune mentioned) insist. Scientists don’t simply “follow theories” for the sake of following them. There’s no evolution conspiracy.</p>
<p>Note that this isn’t a response to any single person on this thread. This is in response to both what I have read on and outside of this thread.</p>
<p>^^^Snob alert.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my goodness! Haha, I don’t know… most of science research sound groundbreaking in their presentation to the public but are in reality not as significant as they might seem. I would think that her research is most likely further investigation of an issue from the basis of previous findings— not that that makes it any less important, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. You implicitly hinted at it instead :rolleyes:.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you clarify?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For being systems of belief concerning supernatural deities, and possessing several of the characteristics that you have listed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see… in the past people tried to turn common metals into gold in the practice known as alchemy, which is commonly featured in today’s satires. Because of some of its systematic methodology and its attempt at understanding the elements of nature, it can certainly be considered a valid scientific endeavor of the time period— in fact, I believe Newton devoted himself very much to the study of alchemy, and some people today actually regard the practice as the forerunner of modern organic chemistry, all of which suggests that the current scientific understanding of the natural world is destined to change as new discoveries come into light. I’m not so sure that today’s scientific views would not be brought up again in the future with a tinge of amusement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably. I didn’t intend to argue that evolution does not exist, merely that scientific theories do not necessarily always conflict with religious beliefs.</p>
<p>Don’t dis’ on alchemy. I’m still examining the medicinal potential of antimony and trying to turn a mixture of sulfur and mercury into the philosopher’s stone using a hermetic vase</p>
<p>^Haha, how is it going?</p>