Actually random genetic mutations and natural selection
JQ: Evolution has a long way to go before it can be truely called a
theory. There is almost no science to talk about when it comes to
describing how ape to man evolution may have occured.
1) Evolution is not just ape-man 2) evolution does not claim evolution
from ape-man, it just postulates a common ancestor for apes and man.
JQ: Evolution clearly needs help. For years I've heard "well it happened
over
billions of years, that's why we cannot detect it". Ive seen the 'how the
But we can detect it so that is a poor strawman's argument.
giraffe got it's lond neck' used as a scientific explanation for evolution.
That is wrong as well. Evolution can be an explanation for the long neck
but not the other way around.
JQ: Of course this is fallacy. Ive read about the different colored moths
which is not an example of real evolution (the formation of new dna, new
cells , tissue, organs, organ systems, immune systems, skeletal etc and
etc). Genetic mutations guided by natural laws is what I hear most.
Why are you redefining evolution ?
JQ: What is the driving force? What are the mechanisms?
As I said, mutation and natural selection.
JQ: I dont think what I am offering is empty. I am merely pointing out
how
words can hide the complexity of an issue. I dont mean to be too harsh
when talking about darwin. However, our knowledge is far superior to that
Of course, we have found more data, we know more about the mechanism of
inheritance etc.
JQ: of darwins. Quoting darwin is commendable is a historic setting.
Quoting
darwin in a scientific setting is like quoting an alchemist at a inorganic
chemistry seminar. They were intelligent men but we know much more than
they did.
Darwin's relevance lies in the formulation of natural selection as a major
force which could explain the observed evolution.
JQ: As I said before, why else would someone put the words darwin in a
fish
unless they were comparing darwin to Jesus? I understand the humor, but
the humor is in the comparison. They both require faith. More faith for
the former.
So you claim but then you also appear to claim ignorance about evolution.
So perhaps there is no need for so much faith in evolution. After all
science requires no faith similar to the religious faith. for good
reasons, as it would interfere with science.