If Darwin created "Evolution" *again*, all he would do is change the name (to begin with)?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you would be surprised, which end of Evolution Darwin thought went first.

Oh, do tell.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Except there is a consensus in science on the theory of evolution. That the theory of evolution is a fact of biology.

Last I counted there were seven different versions. The OP suggested another one, that evolution can go backwards. My experiences with teenagers who can't spell, add, subtract, form a sentence or a logical idea makes me think that he could be onto something.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Last I counted there were seven different versions. The OP suggested another one, that evolution can go backwards. My experiences with teenagers who can't spell, add, subtract, form a sentence or a logical idea makes me think that he could be onto something.

I would like something to show these seven different versions of the theory of evolution you claim to exist.
Gottservant really has no idea what he's talking about. I swear that he genuinely just makes this stuff up as he goes along.
As for the teenagers... blame the education system instead of evolution, because that's where the fault lies. Not with biology.

 

[Gottservant]

I would like something to show these seven different versions of the theory of evolution you claim to exist.
Gottservant really has no idea what he's talking about. I swear that he genuinely just makes this stuff up as he goes along.
As for the teenagers... blame the education system instead of evolution, because that's where the fault lies. Not with biology.

Well, duh...

seems I am on the cutting edge here

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, duh...

seems I am on the cutting edge here

That really is not anything to do with what I asked Aussie and the article isn't saying what you think it says.

 

[Gottservant]

That really is not anything to do with what I asked Aussie and the article isn't saying what you think it says.

Now you're getting ready to tell me what to think, great.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now you're getting ready to tell me what to think, great.

Well you like to tell me what I'm saying. It's not nice, is it?
Gene loss does not mean that a creature is evolving backwards. It simply means that a gene becomes inactive or is lost from the phenotype without negative effects of the creature.
This article explains it pretty well.

 

[Gottservant]

Well you like to tell me what I'm saying. It's not nice, is it?
Gene loss does not mean that a creature is evolving backwards. It simply means that a gene becomes inactive or is lost from the phenotype without negative effects of the creature.
This article explains it pretty well.

Which basically says what I was saying.

Meaning the only reason you treat me the way you do, is because you don't know how to do anything else?

"Father, forgive them - for they know not what they do"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which basically says what I was saying.

Meaning the only reason you treat me the way you do, is because you don't know how to do anything else?

"Father, forgive them - for they know not what they do"

Except you aren't saying anything of the like! You claim that gene less is a negative and that it's backwards evolution.
The truth is the gene loss is not backwards evolution but just evolution. It just happens.

Get over yourself. You're not on any level that I can consider you be someone I need to beg forgiveness from. You know next to nothing about evolution outside of these convoluted and insipid threads you create where people time and time again show you that you are completely wrong about evolution and you do NOTHING to prove them wrong.

 

[Gottservant]

Except you aren't saying anything of the like! You claim that gene less is a negative and that it's backwards evolution.
The truth is the gene loss is not backwards evolution but just evolution. It just happens.

Get over yourself. You're not on any level that I can consider you be someone I need to beg forgiveness from. You know next to nothing about evolution outside of these convoluted and insipid threads you create where people time and time again show you that you are completely wrong about evolution and you do NOTHING to prove them wrong.

You have conflated my desire to go backwards, with my identification (unaided) of negative Evolution.

If God revealed your Evolution to me, every time - would you believe? in God??

Jesus says "Even if I proved I could save every possible Evolution [...] those that can't evolve as much as others would refuse to validate the entirety of the theory"

The preceding is reason above, to develop a human dimension to the theory: as we are clearly not giving it up (the theory)?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have conflated my desire to go backwards, with my identification (unaided) of negative Evolution.

If God revealed your Evolution to me, every time - would you believe? in God??

Jesus says "Even if I proved I could save every possible Evolution [...] those that can't evolve as much as others would refuse to validate the entirety of the theory"

The preceding is reason above, to develop a human dimension to the theory: as we are clearly not giving it up (the theory)?

There is no such thing as negative evolution! There is just evolution!

 

[Gottservant]

There is no such thing as negative evolution! There is just evolution!

But the link you gave, said the opposite.

What actually are you referencing, if your own article extends the point?

Let me put it this way: "What is the foundation upon which you would base, gradual shift: of my faith in Creation, to faith in Evolution - what is the smallest unit of your argument?"

I am not intent on shifting you - I have faith in God (God doesn't push religion).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the link you gave, said the opposite.

What actually are you referencing, if your own article extends the point?

Let me put it this way: "What is the foundation upon which you would base, gradual shift: of my faith in Creation, to faith in Evolution - what is the smallest unit of your argument?"

I am not intent on shifting you - I have faith in God (God doesn't push religion).

Gene loss is not negative evolution though. It's still evolution. It's a simple fact that when you loose something, you change. Even in evolution, to loose a gene is still to change, so it's still evolution.

 

[Gene2memE]

Deletions are a very common form of mutation.

Here's a long but very informative paper on their importance, using the chicken genome as an example.

Genome-Wide Characterization of Insertion and Deletion Variation in Chicken Using Next Generation Sequencing

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The Walkerin - Gottservant Theory of Almost Everything

It certainly has a ring to it - just waiting for Gottservant to iron it out so I can leave my day job.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like something to show these seven different versions of the theory of evolution you claim to exist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not what I was asking him for or about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not what I was asking him for or about.

Well, you did ask for seven versions, and I gave you eight.

I could have made something up.

Like micro, macro, punctuated equilibrium, Lamarckism, and a few others; but I didn't want to seem like I didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, you did ask for seven versions, and I gave you eight.

I could have made something up.

Like micro, macro, punctuated equilibrium, Lamarckism, and a few others; but I didn't want to seem like I didn't know what I was talking about.

Yeah, here's the thing: I didn't ask you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, here's the thing: I didn't ask you.

That's okay. I don't mind answering.