New Research Proves That Darwin Was Wrong

[Saving Hawaii]

And it was published in Nature, the great bastion of liberal conspiracies ranging from evilution to global warming.

Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question by new research published in the journal Nature. A collaboration between the Universities of Exeter and Bath in the UK, with a group from San Diego State University in the US, challenges our current understanding of evolution by showing that biodiversity may evolve where previously thought impossible...

Conventional wisdom has it that for any given niche there should be a best species, the fittest, that will eventually dominate to exclude all others. This is the principle of survival of the fittest... "Microbiologists have tested this principle by constructing very simple environments in the lab to see what happens after hundreds of generations of bacterial evolution, about 3,000 years in human terms. It had been believed that the genome of only the fittest bacteria would be left, but that wasn't their finding. The experiments generated lots of unexpected genetic diversity."

Evilution: Not only the fittest survive
​

Even the Darwinists realize that the game is up.

 

[Hespera]

If you could even find a person called a "darwinist"

The understanding that it isnt only the fittest that survive has been around for many years.

That has zero to do with the reality of evolution.

 

[Upisoft]

Interesting. That could explain how a bottleneck in an environment niches after a disaster(super volcano, asteroid impact) can actually stimulate diversity.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Evolution is a "liberal conspiracy"?

LOL

 

[TheReasoner]

Evolution is a "liberal conspiracy"?

LOL

You didn't know? It sure is. That, and relativity. For so sayeth conservapedia. And conservapedia is 'the trustworthy encyclopedia' [sic.]

Be warned, stopping by cp is either going to make you laugh or cry. Possibly with laughter.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

You didn't know? It sure is. That, and relativity. For so sayeth conservapedia. And conservapedia is 'the trustworthy encyclopedia' [sic.]

Be warned, stopping by cp is either going to make you laugh or cry. Possibly with laughter.

ROFLMAO Conservapedia is now bookmarked. Hilarious stuff. Thank you for brightening up my day considerably.

I don't think I'm ever going to research anything now without popping in to check what that insane website has to say on the topic.

 

[Delphiki]

Ugh. Let me point this out again to all the people who like to use the term "Darwinist":

Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. That is over 150 years ago. There have been over 150 years worth of refinement and improvements regarding the Theory of Evolution since then. We are at a day and age where "Darwin" is not synonymous with the Theory of Evolution. Please update your religious propaganda to something new and current. Thank you.

 

[SharpSolaris]

Praise be to Allah, Saving Hawaii can learn something new for yourself in this forum.

 

[Hespera]

Ugh. Let me point this out again to all the people who like to use the term "Darwinist":

Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. That is over 150 years ago. There have been over 150 years worth of refinement and improvements regarding the Theory of Evolution since then. We are at a day and age where "Darwin" is not synonymous with the Theory of Evolution. Please update your religious propaganda to something new and current. Thank you.

Pass it on also to the guy who calls people "Darwinians', maybe you can help him. He is in the "same evidence, different conclusions' thread.

 

[Upisoft]

Ugh. Let me point this out again to all the people who like to use the term "Darwinist":

Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. That is over 150 years ago. There have been over 150 years worth of refinement and improvements regarding the Theory of Evolution since then. We are at a day and age where "Darwin" is not synonymous with the Theory of Evolution. Please update your religious propaganda to something new and current. Thank you.

I guess his problem and problem of many like him is that they think we read Darwin's book like they read their Bible.
He thinks that if Darwin was in error it will shatter our world view.
He doesn't understand that if we find that Darwin was incorrect it would be as much exciting(or maybe even more) as finding proof he was correct.

I'm also excited, because I can't see how I can use these findings in my algorithms. I guess I have much work to do. That is exciting.

 

[Delphiki]

I guess his problem and problem of many like him is that they think we read Darwin's book like they read their Bible.
He thinks that if Darwin was in error it will shatter our world view.
He doesn't understand that if we find that Darwin was incorrect it would be as much exciting(or maybe even more) as finding proof he was correct.

I'm also excited, because I can't see how I can use these findings in my algorithms. I guess I have much work to do. That is exciting.

Exactly.

It's my understanding that if we were to really define the word "Darwinism", then it would be described as the view following Charles Darwin either as a God of some kind or that the understanding of evolution he had at the time was complete and absolute. Or maybe a terrorist movement that commits atrocities int he name of Charles Darwin. Which I think we'll all find that there are very few people (if any at all) that hold this opinion/belief.

 

[Hespera]

The whole purpose is to make it sound like a religious cult.

 

[Split Rock]

And it was published in Nature, the great bastion of liberal conspiracies ranging from evilution to global warming.

Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question by new research published in the journal Nature. A collaboration between the Universities of Exeter and Bath in the UK, with a group from San Diego State University in the US, challenges our current understanding of evolution by showing that biodiversity may evolve where previously thought impossible...

Conventional wisdom has it that for any given niche there should be a best species, the fittest, that will eventually dominate to exclude all others. This is the principle of survival of the fittest... "Microbiologists have tested this principle by constructing very simple environments in the lab to see what happens after hundreds of generations of bacterial evolution, about 3,000 years in human terms. It had been believed that the genome of only the fittest bacteria would be left, but that wasn't their finding. The experiments generated lots of unexpected genetic diversity."

Evilution: Not only the fittest survive
​

Even the Darwinists realize that the game is up.

Here is another snipet from the article:

Professor Laurence Hurst, of the University of Bath, said: "Key to the new understanding is the realization that the amount of energy organisms squeeze out of their food depends on how much food they have. Give them abundant food and they use it inefficiently. When we combine this with the notion that organisms with different food-utilizing strategies are also affected in different ways by genetic mutations, then we discover a new principle, one in which both the fit and the unfit coexist indefinitely."

Dr Ivana Gudelj, also from the University of Exeter, said: "The fit use food well but they aren't resilient to mutations, whereas the less efficient, unfit consumers are maintained by their resilience to mutation. If there's a low mutation rate, survival of the fittest rules, but if not, lots of diversity can be maintained.

"Rather nicely, the numbers needed for the principle to work accord with those enigmatic experiments on bacteria. Their mutation rate seems to be high enough for both fit and unfit to be maintained."

So, Darwin was not really wrong, since natural selection is predicated on limited resources that drive a struggle for survival. In cases were resources are abundant, natural selection will not occur.

No where, of course, does the article indicate that evolution does not happen, or that natural selection is not a valid mechanism of evolution. Saving Hawaii strikes out again, though he did at least bring up an interesting article.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Jeez, I guess I really have been gone for a little too long.

 

[Drathnor]

Darwin could be as wrong as you like, creationism is still about as valid as flying pigs.

 

[USincognito]

Jeez, I guess I really have been gone for a little too long.

Well, CF is ground zero for Poe's Law.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Jeez, I guess I really have been gone for a little too long.

I see what you did there...

 

[Hespera]

I see what you did there...

ok what is it i missed something?

 

[Split Rock]

Jeez, I guess I really have been gone for a little too long.

Yeah, you have... Poed again!

 

[lucaspa]

Split Rock gave a better answer.