Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

I don't deny natural selection

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:30:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

If it was just in one environment yes.

Imagine you have one population of lets say "Fluffy Unicorns".

Suppose the area they are in is suddenly divided into three, a north, a middle and a south.

The North is a very cold area, the middle is a moderate temperature area, and the south is a very warm area.

In the North, the Fluffy Unicorn "Extra fluff" gene would be selected for, while in the middle and south, it would not. You have just created the "Super Fluffy Unicorn"

In the Middle, where it is neither hot nor cold, any variation that increases or decreases fluff will be selected against, so the species stays the same. The "Fluffy Unicorn remains".

In the South, where it is very warm, the gene for "No fluff" would be selected for. So you have just created the "Not-so-fluffy Unicorn".

So because of Natural Selection, one species has just become three.
Meh!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 10:15:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
The counter argument would be that fluffiness is not sufficient to distinguish new species of unicorn. Climate differences of produced humans of different colours, but we are not different species.

I have to make that argument on behalf of anti-evolutionsists - I don't trust them to have the brains to do it themselves! But there half a point to the objection - the theory of evolution has to explain how to get species as different as, say, herrings and oak trees which on the surface have very little in common - certainly more than a difference in fluffiness!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 12:40:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 10:15:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
The counter argument would be that fluffiness is not sufficient to distinguish new species of unicorn. Climate differences of produced humans of different colours, but we are not different species.

I have to make that argument on behalf of anti-evolutionsists - I don't trust them to have the brains to do it themselves! But there half a point to the objection - the theory of evolution has to explain how to get species as different as, say, herrings and oak trees which on the surface have very little in common - certainly more than a difference in fluffiness!

It's a simple example, most creationists don't fully understand evolution.
Meh!
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:27:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

You are right that natural selection only removes diversity and bad mutations and evolutionists do not claim that natural selection adds diversity. Nobody does.

One feature of natural selection that you forgot to mention is that animals with especially good traits will have a greater and greater share of the future populations because of natural selection so natural selection magnifies good traits although it can't create them.

What adds diversity are mutations. Most mutations are neutral and each person has 100 - 200 of them. So mutations add genetic diversity all the time.

A few mutations are bad and as mentioned above natural selection will remove or subtract it. Good mutations will be magnified by natural selection and that is what evolution is.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 7:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.
Actually, it's more complex than that. All species produce more offspring than can survive. The offspring already contain great diversity through the mechanisms of sexual reproduction. Without mutations to alter the genome, normal reproduction and natural selection can still make all black crows white.

Now if you think about it, if once there were only black crows, then in some land there are now white crows while the rest of the world's crows remain black, then there is now new information in the world, under the scientific definition of information established by Claude Shannon in the 1948s, and which we still use today. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

So natural selection can produce new information. It can't place it in the genome, but can place it in the world.

So now ask yourself the reverse question: if natural selection can impart genetic information to the world, can the world also impart environmental information to the genome?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 8:02:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:30:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

If it was just in one environment yes.

Imagine you have one population of lets say "Fluffy Unicorns".

Suppose the area they are in is suddenly divided into three, a north, a middle and a south.

The North is a very cold area, the middle is a moderate temperature area, and the south is a very warm area.

In the North, the Fluffy Unicorn "Extra fluff" gene would be selected for, while in the middle and south, it would not. You have just created the "Super Fluffy Unicorn"

In the Middle, where it is neither hot nor cold, any variation that increases or decreases fluff will be selected against, so the species stays the same. The "Fluffy Unicorn remains".

In the South, where it is very warm, the gene for "No fluff" would be selected for. So you have just created the "Not-so-fluffy Unicorn".

So because of Natural Selection, one species has just become three.

Natural selection would never make a unicorn fluffier than it's genetics already allow. Natural selection can't make anything at all.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 8:43:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
A wise man once said about threads like this:

"There's a fairly simple way to get rid of them. Just don't reply to them, and reply to legit science threads (This is so the crackpot threads just get bumped down until they're off the front page).

Seem sensible?"


Any idea who it was, Axonly?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 12:33:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 8:43:46 PM, keithprosser wrote:
A wise man once said about threads like this:

"There's a fairly simple way to get rid of them. Just don't reply to them, and reply to legit science threads (This is so the crackpot threads just get bumped down until they're off the front page).

Seem sensible?"


Any idea who it was, Axonly?

Yeah, the guy who said that sounds like he's completely full of it right?

Lol, I know I'm a hypocrite
Meh!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 12:48:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I wrote a post that it's like picking at a scab - you know you shouldn't, but you can't help yourself.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:33:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:30:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

If it was just in one environment yes.

Imagine you have one population of lets say "Fluffy Unicorns".

Suppose the area they are in is suddenly divided into three, a north, a middle and a south.

The North is a very cold area, the middle is a moderate temperature area, and the south is a very warm area.

In the North, the Fluffy Unicorn "Extra fluff" gene would be selected for, while in the middle and south, it would not. You have just created the "Super Fluffy Unicorn"

In the Middle, where it is neither hot nor cold, any variation that increases or decreases fluff will be selected against, so the species stays the same. The "Fluffy Unicorn remains".

In the South, where it is very warm, the gene for "No fluff" would be selected for. So you have just created the "Not-so-fluffy Unicorn".

So because of Natural Selection, one species has just become three.

Are you an idiot?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 5:52:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 3:33:28 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:30:57 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

If it was just in one environment yes.

Imagine you have one population of lets say "Fluffy Unicorns".

Suppose the area they are in is suddenly divided into three, a north, a middle and a south.

The North is a very cold area, the middle is a moderate temperature area, and the south is a very warm area.

In the North, the Fluffy Unicorn "Extra fluff" gene would be selected for, while in the middle and south, it would not. You have just created the "Super Fluffy Unicorn"

In the Middle, where it is neither hot nor cold, any variation that increases or decreases fluff will be selected against, so the species stays the same. The "Fluffy Unicorn remains".

In the South, where it is very warm, the gene for "No fluff" would be selected for. So you have just created the "Not-so-fluffy Unicorn".

So because of Natural Selection, one species has just become three.

Are you an idiot?

No, but apparently you can't understand this, what doesn't make sense?
Meh!
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 5:56:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 8:43:46 PM, keithprosser wrote:
A wise man once said about threads like this:

"There's a fairly simple way to get rid of them. Just don't reply to them, and reply to legit science threads (This is so the crackpot threads just get bumped down until they're off the front page).

Seem sensible?"


Any idea who it was, Axonly?

Lets be honest, crazy crackpot threads are so much funner than educational science threads.
UUU
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 9:18:35 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM, UUU wrote:
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?

The populations in "very cold" and "very warm" areas would evolve "extra fluff" and "no fluff" over time (assuming of course the right alleles exist, and they don't go extinct first). In reality, for this to happen, the change would probably have to be more gradual.
Meh!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:15:23 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's not really about survival - its about reproduction. Unicorns badly suited to their environment don't necessarily have to drop dead for natural sekection to work. Better suited individuals are more likely to have offspring - especially if you define 'better suited to the environment' (i.e. 'fitness') as 'more likely to have offspring, which is what we do!

Basically, unicorns with the wrong sort of fluff might waste too much energy keeping cool (or warm) to reproduce as much, or to produce as much good unicorn milk for their offspring so their colts are not as healthy. There are many ways natural selection can operate.

The difference in fitness can be very small but it adds up over a few generations to make a big difference - it's all to do with exponential functions....
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:22:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM, UUU wrote:
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?

let me break it down to something simpler for you.

Before we go on, lets just assume that the fluffyness of the unicorn can be measured on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is fluffless and 10 is super fluffy. Now in the beginning, the average fluffness of the unicorns are 5. but that doesnt mean that all the unicorns are at 5. the fluffyness of the unicorns might average at 5. but they follow the normal distribution( go google "normal distribution" ). in other words, some unicorns might have fluffyness of more then 5 and some less then 5.

Now heres what you can do to help this example. it requires abit of math.

Take a piece of paper and draw a line horizontally. now under that line, write the numbers 1 to 10. this will represent the fluffyness of the unicorns. now on that line, write the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 2, 1, 0. this represents the unicorn population.
Now to calculate the average fluff, u use the following formula.

total fluff = 1*1+2*2+4*3+5*4+6*5+5*6+4*7+2*8+1*9+0*10 = 150
total population of unicorns = 1+2+4+5+6+5+4+2+1+0 = 30
average fluff = 150/30 =5

easy right?

Now lets pretend this population of unicorns are those in the cold area. So those with less fluff find it harder to survive. unicorns with 1-3 fluff all dies. only 2 unicorns with 4 fluff survives. 3 unicorns with 5 fluff survives. all with 6 or more fluff survives.

if you do the math right, your new average fluff will be as below.

new total fluff = 106
new population = 17
new average fluff = 6.23

As you can see, the average fluff of the unicorn population has increased. With multiple cycles of breeding and death, this average fluff will continue to increase.

any questions?
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 11:58:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

( continued)

Incorrect. 0/1 points.
UUU
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 1:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:22:16 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM, UUU wrote:
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?

let me break it down to something simpler for you.

Before we go on, lets just assume that the fluffyness of the unicorn can be measured on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is fluffless and 10 is super fluffy. Now in the beginning, the average fluffness of the unicorns are 5. but that doesnt mean that all the unicorns are at 5. the fluffyness of the unicorns might average at 5. but they follow the normal distribution( go google "normal distribution" ). in other words, some unicorns might have fluffyness of more then 5 and some less then 5.

Now heres what you can do to help this example. it requires abit of math.

Take a piece of paper and draw a line horizontally. now under that line, write the numbers 1 to 10. this will represent the fluffyness of the unicorns. now on that line, write the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 2, 1, 0. this represents the unicorn population.
Now to calculate the average fluff, u use the following formula.

total fluff = 1*1+2*2+4*3+5*4+6*5+5*6+4*7+2*8+1*9+0*10 = 150
total population of unicorns = 1+2+4+5+6+5+4+2+1+0 = 30
average fluff = 150/30 =5

easy right?

Now lets pretend this population of unicorns are those in the cold area. So those with less fluff find it harder to survive. unicorns with 1-3 fluff all dies. only 2 unicorns with 4 fluff survives. 3 unicorns with 5 fluff survives. all with 6 or more fluff survives.

if you do the math right, your new average fluff will be as below.

new total fluff = 106
new population = 17
new average fluff = 6.23

As you can see, the average fluff of the unicorn population has increased. With multiple cycles of breeding and death, this average fluff will continue to increase.

any questions?

What were the unicorns having 10/10 fluffyness doing in the area where temperature is not cold, doesn't that make them more prone to extinction?

How could the unicorn food survive in northern areas where it is 'very cold and in the southern areas where it is 'very warm' ?
UUU
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 1:35:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
We can select animals on the basis of their physical characteristics. If the there are hundreds of them, that doesn't make them a new species.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 1:55:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 1:22:08 PM, UUU wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:22:16 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM, UUU wrote:
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?

let me break it down to something simpler for you.

Before we go on, lets just assume that the fluffyness of the unicorn can be measured on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is fluffless and 10 is super fluffy. Now in the beginning, the average fluffness of the unicorns are 5. but that doesnt mean that all the unicorns are at 5. the fluffyness of the unicorns might average at 5. but they follow the normal distribution( go google "normal distribution" ). in other words, some unicorns might have fluffyness of more then 5 and some less then 5.

Now heres what you can do to help this example. it requires abit of math.

Take a piece of paper and draw a line horizontally. now under that line, write the numbers 1 to 10. this will represent the fluffyness of the unicorns. now on that line, write the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 2, 1, 0. this represents the unicorn population.
Now to calculate the average fluff, u use the following formula.

total fluff = 1*1+2*2+4*3+5*4+6*5+5*6+4*7+2*8+1*9+0*10 = 150
total population of unicorns = 1+2+4+5+6+5+4+2+1+0 = 30
average fluff = 150/30 =5

easy right?

Now lets pretend this population of unicorns are those in the cold area. So those with less fluff find it harder to survive. unicorns with 1-3 fluff all dies. only 2 unicorns with 4 fluff survives. 3 unicorns with 5 fluff survives. all with 6 or more fluff survives.

if you do the math right, your new average fluff will be as below.

new total fluff = 106
new population = 17
new average fluff = 6.23

As you can see, the average fluff of the unicorn population has increased. With multiple cycles of breeding and death, this average fluff will continue to increase.

any questions?

What were the unicorns having 10/10 fluffyness doing in the area where temperature is not cold, doesn't that make them more prone to extinction?

if you paid attention to the example given or my explanation, it doesnt take a genius to understand that the opposite happens in places where its hotter. unicorns with 10/10 fluffyness dies off and those with less then 5 fluffyness survive better. there fore after multiple cycles of breeding and death, you get a species of unicorn with close to 1 fluffyness which can be physically differentiated from its 5/10 (original) or 10/10 (cold area) counterparts.


How could the unicorn food survive in northern areas where it is 'very cold and in the southern areas where it is 'very warm' ?

this is an example to show how animals evolve when exposed to different factor (eg climate change). stop asking stupid unrelated questions. why cant food survive in the northern area? they evolve the same way. just look at plants. some plants survive better no matter where they are like grass. you dont see much difference in grass any where be it a cold country like canada or in hot countries like india. other plants like cactus have evolved to have thin needle like leafs.

also why cant you apply the same logic to plants and/or the unicorns food?

food that has more cold resistant survive better. food with less cold resistant die off faster. there fore genes of food with better cold resistance will be carried forward to the next generation and u end up with food that is overall suited to the environment.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 2:00:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 1:35:09 PM, UUU wrote:
We can select animals on the basis of their physical characteristics. If the there are hundreds of them, that doesn't make them a new species.

could you rephrase this statement? i didnt understand it. are you trying to say that there has to be more then hundreds of an animal for it to be considered a different species?

or are you trying to say that having hundreds of different physical characteristics still doesnt make it a new species?

do clarify.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 2:33:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 7:00:15 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Natural selection is not compatible with evolution, it's subtractive not additive.

It does not add to diversity, it eliminates animal species.

Evolution is the myth that illogical random mutations creates new types of animals, and that such everything else, such as Natural Selection and Irreducible Complexity, are insufficient to prevent Evolution.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:01:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 4:43:55 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I wonder if it's they don't, can't, or don't want to understand it.

I understand it just fine, probably better than 99% of evo hacks on here. I understand it well enough to understand that it's an elaborate hypothesis, not a demonstrable fact, so one understands evolution the way one understands Shakespeare. And evo apologists are like Shakespeare fans - pompous snobs. Shakespeare was brilliant, don't get me wrong, and so are many prominent evolutionists. But it's actually a sign of shallowness to feel superior to those who prefer a different kind of fiction.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 3:07:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 11:15:23 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It's not really about survival - its about reproduction. Unicorns badly suited to their environment don't necessarily have to drop dead for natural sekection to work. Better suited individuals are more likely to have offspring - especially if you define 'better suited to the environment' (i.e. 'fitness') as 'more likely to have offspring, which is what we do!

Basically, unicorns with the wrong sort of fluff might waste too much energy keeping cool (or warm) to reproduce as much, or to produce as much good unicorn milk for their offspring so their colts are not as healthy. There are many ways natural selection can operate.

The difference in fitness can be very small but it adds up over a few generations to make a big difference - it's all to do with exponential functions....

Exactly - evolution works for unicorns. In other words, "Great story, bro!" It's a fun game, like "six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon" - let's come up with a story that explains why species X has feature Y.

But it's story telling, not science. Science is demonstrable through repeatable experiment. That's what makes science science - it's what gets humanity from the campfire to the laboratory.
This space for rent.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 4:49:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/10/2016 1:55:29 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/10/2016 1:22:08 PM, UUU wrote:
At 6/10/2016 11:22:16 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/10/2016 8:19:31 AM, UUU wrote:
Am I the only one who couldn't understand 'the theory of fluffy unicorns' ? I thought none of those unicorns survived the 'very cold' and' very warm' area?

let me break it down to something simpler for you.

Before we go on, lets just assume that the fluffyness of the unicorn can be measured on a scale of 0-10 where 0 is fluffless and 10 is super fluffy. Now in the beginning, the average fluffness of the unicorns are 5. but that doesnt mean that all the unicorns are at 5. the fluffyness of the unicorns might average at 5. but they follow the normal distribution( go google "normal distribution" ). in other words, some unicorns might have fluffyness of more then 5 and some less then 5.

Now heres what you can do to help this example. it requires abit of math.

Take a piece of paper and draw a line horizontally. now under that line, write the numbers 1 to 10. this will represent the fluffyness of the unicorns. now on that line, write the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 5, 4, 2, 1, 0. this represents the unicorn population.
Now to calculate the average fluff, u use the following formula.

total fluff = 1*1+2*2+4*3+5*4+6*5+5*6+4*7+2*8+1*9+0*10 = 150
total population of unicorns = 1+2+4+5+6+5+4+2+1+0 = 30
average fluff = 150/30 =5

easy right?

Now lets pretend this population of unicorns are those in the cold area. So those with less fluff find it harder to survive. unicorns with 1-3 fluff all dies. only 2 unicorns with 4 fluff survives. 3 unicorns with 5 fluff survives. all with 6 or more fluff survives.

if you do the math right, your new average fluff will be as below.

new total fluff = 106
new population = 17
new average fluff = 6.23

As you can see, the average fluff of the unicorn population has increased. With multiple cycles of breeding and death, this average fluff will continue to increase.

any questions?

What were the unicorns having 10/10 fluffyness doing in the area where temperature is not cold, doesn't that make them more prone to extinction?

if you paid attention to the example given or my explanation, it doesnt take a genius to understand that the opposite happens in places where its hotter. unicorns with 10/10 fluffyness dies off and those with less then 5 fluffyness survive better. there fore after multiple cycles of breeding and death, you get a species of unicorn with close to 1 fluffyness which can be physically differentiated from its 5/10 (original) or 10/10 (cold area) counterparts.



How could the unicorn food survive in northern areas where it is 'very cold and in the southern areas where it is 'very warm' ?

this is an example to show how animals evolve when exposed to different factor (eg climate change). stop asking stupid unrelated questions. why cant food survive in the northern area? they evolve the same way. just look at plants. some plants survive better no matter where they are like grass. you dont see much difference in grass any where be it a cold country like canada or in hot countries like india. other plants like cactus have evolved to have thin needle like leafs.

also why cant you apply the same logic to plants and/or the unicorns food?

food that has more cold resistant survive better. food with less cold resistant die off faster. there fore genes of food with better cold resistance will be carried forward to the next generation and u end up with food that is overall suited to the environment.

How did snow leopards evolved?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 4:50:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Re : How did snow leopards evolve?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
RE: How did snow leopards evolve?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,056
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 5:19:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Exactly - evolution works for unicorns. In other words, "Great story, bro!" It's a fun game, like "six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon" - let's come up with a story that explains why species X has feature Y.

But it's story telling, not science. Science is demonstrable through repeatable experiment. That's what makes science science - it's what gets humanity from the campfire to the laboratory.


Surely whether the theory of evolution is 'science' according to a particular dictionary defintion is not the real issue. The issue is whether the TOE is an accurate description of what happened, or rather if it is more accurate than alternative descriptions.

There is no 'true' story about the evolution of fluffy and bald unicorns - there are no such things as unicorns. The unicorn story suggests the 'sort of thing' that happened (and still happens) in nature to produce all the varieties of life we see around us. Science or not, the TOE is much closer to the truth than the idea that all the different species in the world are the result of individual acts of creation by a god, or his alias an 'intelligent designer'.