- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 366
What I think you're saying: A trait doesn't need to be necessary for survival in order for the species to evolve to have it. A mutation is also not required for trait to appear and spread. The theory of evolution, which is a fairytale, provides for evolution without mutations and also for the emergence of new traits that are not necessary for survival.So I tell you again and again and again. There is no (adaption) change to SURVIVE as an requirement. And no change because of misbehaviour (an error) of the dna so that a mutation happen who will survive further as an requirement.
There are changes happening (in this fairytale) without having anything to do with this two.
My response:
1) I'll say it again. You are correct that a species can evolve a new trait even if that new trait was not necessary for survival. I never said anything even kind of like that. On the contrary, I gave an example of a trait appearing and spreading which was not necessary for survival. (Polar bears, post #10). If you disagree, I challenge you to find where I said a new trait could only appear and/or spread if it were necessary for survival and quote it back to me.
Consider, in addition, that even if you met my challenge, it wouldn't undermine anything I've said. That's because nothing I've said depends on the idea that a trait can only appear and/or spread if it's required to survive.
2) Actually... to some extent you are correct about the necessity of mutation. It has been recently discovered that certain genes can "activate" or "deactivate" after birth in response to environmental factors. So our genotype can actually alter without passing a mutation to the next generation. Is that what you're thinking about?
That does NOT mean, however, than an entirely new trait will suddenly spring out of nowhere in response to our desire for that trait. Unless we all already have deactivated genes for "10 inch penis" in us, we will not suddenly have the genes for that within our own lifetimes, and the next generation will not have the genes for that (because we don't have them to pass on) unless a mistake is made. That's what a mutation is.
The funny thing is that "Darwinism" has already been debunked. The "nerds" in the universities are aware that Darwin didn't get it right. He discovered the basic idea of evolution, but the details weren't quite accurate. Which is fine. We could say the same about Newtonian physics! That's the process of learning and growing.Read the tittel of the thread again
The problem is that it isn't wrong for the reason you're suggesting, which is why you haven't yet actually addressed the theory of evolution. You've set up a straw man theory of your own and attacked that mercilessly.
This entire thread, we haven't actually discussed the theory of evolution. I've been trying to tell you what the theory is, and I mean establishing a basic, fundamental understanding of it. I'm not a biologist. I haven't gotten into the details or finer points, and I haven't said anything even remotely controversial.