Quote:
I like your point. have you ever read the criteria Darwin explained for evolution to occur? I took Zoology last semester and we discussed Darwin and his theory for several weeks. This was out of my notes.
I. The four agents of evolutionary change.
A. Forces that create new variants
1. Mutation
2. Gene flow (migration)
B. Forces that lead to biased transmission of alleles between generations
1. Genetic drift
2. Natural selection
The Theory of Evolution is not considered a scientific fact because we have not witnessed a new species created. We have observed mutation and genetic drift, and that took hundreds or thousands of years to be done naturally.
Altering genes by human design is not natural. Their was no long term selection by the environment to allow gm organisms to function as a part of that environment. Introducing GM would be like introducing an invasive species. It could die off quickly or take over everything, wiping out many of the indigenous fauna.
The Theory of Evolvution is not a fact of any sort for at leat three reasons.
1. Inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, true mutation has never been prooven possible to create even a one cell living organism.
2. Also inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, not one shred of evidence has been found linking the descent of any living species fr a different species that is now extinct.'
3. If the present popularly accepted scientific theory of the origin and age of Earth is correct, The Theory of Evolution is a mathmatic impossiblety.
Millions of people accept and embrace the Darwin' theory, yet all evidence is that it falls in the same category as the theory of space aliens dropping life here, the evolution theory being just a bit older..
I'm not supporting splicing gene cells to improove meat chickens, but GMs have already been introduced anyway. They will have the same impact as the domestication of plant and animal species did. If GM is used on chickens, and I think it likely, eventually the vast majority will accept it as progress with a few admitted pitfalls.
P.S. If they ever retitle Darwin's theory from an explanation of the origins of life, to the explanation of life adapting to sustain life, I will accept it whole heartedly as being absolute fact, and very proovable.
You may find the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and the concept of "Punctuated Equillibrium" enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
I like your point. have you ever read the criteria Darwin explained for evolution to occur? I took Zoology last semester and we discussed Darwin and his theory for several weeks. This was out of my notes.
I. The four agents of evolutionary change.
A. Forces that create new variants
1. Mutation
2. Gene flow (migration)
B. Forces that lead to biased transmission of alleles between generations
1. Genetic drift
2. Natural selection
The Theory of Evolution is not considered a scientific fact because we have not witnessed a new species created. We have observed mutation and genetic drift, and that took hundreds or thousands of years to be done naturally.
Altering genes by human design is not natural. Their was no long term selection by the environment to allow gm organisms to function as a part of that environment. Introducing GM would be like introducing an invasive species. It could die off quickly or take over everything, wiping out many of the indigenous fauna.
The Theory of Evolvution is not a fact of any sort for at leat three reasons.
1. Inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, true mutation has never been prooven possible to create even a one cell living organism.
2. Also inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, not one shred of evidence has been found linking the descent of any living species fr a different species that is now extinct.'
3. If the present popularly accepted scientific theory of the origin and age of Earth is correct, The Theory of Evolution is a mathmatic impossiblety.
Millions of people accept and embrace the Darwin' theory, yet all evidence is that it falls in the same category as the theory of space aliens dropping life here, the evolution theory being just a bit older..
I'm not supporting splicing gene cells to improove meat chickens, but GMs have already been introduced anyway. They will have the same impact as the domestication of plant and animal species did. If GM is used on chickens, and I think it likely, eventually the vast majority will accept it as progress with a few admitted pitfalls.
P.S. If they ever retitle Darwin's theory from an explanation of the origins of life, to the explanation of life adapting to sustain life, I will accept it whole heartedly as being absolute fact, and very proovable.
You may find the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and the concept of "Punctuated Equillibrium" enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Last edited:
