Evolution.

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 108

--> @drafterman
The evolution of resistance to DDT is complex and arises for a number of reasons.
I agree, evolution is inherently a complex process irrespective of whether simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple or lateral.

For example, it could be as a result of additional copies of a key gene that allows them to produce enzymes which assist in breaking down DDT. This would be simple to complex (more genes = more complex).
I agree that is a numerical complexity.  Some salamanders have many more genes{?} ---more genetic material--- per cell than other animals and that may explain their ability to reproduce legs that are removed.


However, resistance can also be had by reducing the number of bioreceptors that react to DDT. This would be complex to simple (less receptors = less complex).
Ok, so that is numerically complex-to-simple. 

You havent consider lateral or synergetic evolution yet.
--> @ebuc
I don't have examples of those at the moment
--> @drafterman
I don't have examples of those at the moment
No problem. At least your a human that makes a sincere attempt in expressing rational, logical common sense, in regards to evolution.

I agree
--> @Athias
As far as we are able to know, human reality can only be qualified by humanity.

Yep. Progression/evolution as far as we can be aware.

As far as I am able to know, I am my parents son and genetics is an observable process, though a lot of that speculative awareness is reliant upon data from secondary sources.

Certainty is an assumption is uncertainty I suppose.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit @Stronn
It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers

- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'

I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Also are you sure it was said in context?

That quote shows you have no idea how evolution works. AnyONE can’t just walk thousands of kilometres, but over generations...





--> @Reece101 @Stronn
I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Also are you sure it was said in context?

It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.

Tagging stronn in this post only because he was tagged in the post that this is a reply to.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.
You would be surprised then how many people think that way. Also I should warn when I use someones logic.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.
Now you have.