avi?Don't just jump to conclusions like that. He never even mentioned god or religion or anything. I think its a fair question to ask; he even gave an example to support his reasoning
why do nikkas still deny charles darwin, evolution and natural selection
- Thread starter Blaze500
- Start date
Senait Gidey
To much credit is given to Charles Darwin and Natural Selection and not enough credit is given to other scientist like Jean Baptiste Lamark whose theory of evolution precedes Darwin's. Lamark observed that species change over time and his conclusion was that the experience of a species has direct effects on its ability to change over time. The most famous example he gave was that of giraffe's whom he proposed had their necks extended over time as the trees in their environment got larger.
When Darwin came out with natural selection people kinda laughed off the long neck theory. Not saying that his specific reasoning for why giraffes developed longer necks was accurate but over time, the study of epigenetics has proven that genes are activated and deactivated over time depending on our experience. Natural Selection and random mutations have contributed to evolution but with what we've learned in terms of epigenetics, I think we've vastly overestimated the degree to which Natural Selection has contributed to the evolution of species. Genes are malleable and in the history of evolution we should consider all aspects that have contributed to evolution: Natural Selection, Epigenetics, Artificial Selection, Genetic Engineering, and evolutionary radiation.
When Darwin came out with natural selection people kinda laughed off the long neck theory. Not saying that his specific reasoning for why giraffes developed longer necks was accurate but over time, the study of epigenetics has proven that genes are activated and deactivated over time depending on our experience. Natural Selection and random mutations have contributed to evolution but with what we've learned in terms of epigenetics, I think we've vastly overestimated the degree to which Natural Selection has contributed to the evolution of species. Genes are malleable and in the history of evolution we should consider all aspects that have contributed to evolution: Natural Selection, Epigenetics, Artificial Selection, Genetic Engineering, and evolutionary radiation.
Lamark WAS wrong too though in a literal sense. Neither of them understood genetics and outside of mere names, don't have as much contemporary pull in biology because their grasp of the mechanisms involved is so limited.
Not understanding something isn't an excuse. Neither is "not understanding" algebra.
Higher latitude addresses the pigmentation,
and life on the windy steppe is suggested to have pre-selected for that "eye-type" to endure those tree-less conditions.
This is the body part often associated with the "asian eye" Epicanthic fold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. With enough generations, and living in primative conditions, probably. They'll be pre-selected out.
you don't understand all the rules of evolution
what if I killed all the tall ones?
the environment
Tommy Knocks
retired
Inuits dont look european because they weren't in caves nor did they mix with neanderthals. their eyes are perfect for blocking out arctic wind and their skin shouldnt be light because the snow actually causes harsh sun burn due to the reflection.
europeans 'mutated' in a different environment and migrated to europe later on. after the ice age. inuits were on the move during.
Tommy Knocks
retired
I should also add the Inuits have a very very high vitamin D diet. Even during the 6 months of dark winters, they're covered.
I don't think the context of either one of their theories are wrong though. I just think that their theories were incomplete in terms of illustrating the biological mechanism that causes the change(Genes). I just don't like how mainstream perceptions of evolution view random genetic mutations in environments that just so happen to accomodate these mutations as being the ONLY causes of natural evolution throughout the history of life
You don't need to defend them. History judges them.
They were wrong. Darwin was ACTUALLY wrong and Lamarck suggested outright changes not in an epigenetic fashion. Their inaccuracy has to be weighed in history.
Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution
Natural selection is ALSO simply dying off due to being unlucky. Epigenetics is being understood but its still via genes.
You don't have to "like it"...you have to prove it.
What I don't "like" is not the idea of natural selection, but its the perception that its the one guiding force behind evolution. Also the argument about Darwin and Lamark being wrong is relative to what question your asking. Were they wrong about the gradual evolution of species? No. Were they wrong about the exact mechanisms which cause these species to evolve? Yes. For a time when everyone still believed in creationism they introduced the idea of the gradual changing of species over time I'd say that these observations were remarkable considering the fact that understood this without knowledge of genes. Even Darwin's defunct explanation of "gemmules" isn't to conceptually far off with how genes actually work. My comparison over Darwin and Lamark isn't about who was exactly right about the mechanism evolution but about the conceptual ideas behind their theories. Its about how people overstate the randomness of evolution and how little awareness their is to how genes are altered through during our lives and the effects these alterations can play in evolution. I remember watching the evolution episode of Cosmos with Neil Tyson Degrasse for example and he's still explaining evolution specifically through natural selection. Science textbooks to this day still explain evolution strictly through Darwinism. Even scientists like Richard Dawkins appear to be strict Darwinists. I just think their needs to be broader perspectives in the mainstream.