carlos11 (2014-06-06 14:09:15)

---

Enlighten us, fool.

---

ConnorRonnoc (2014-06-06 14:43:40)

---

^

---

iceman (2014-06-06 18:29:01)

---

Too Long; Did not Read!

---

carlos11 (2014-06-06 22:42:39)

---

^This.

No one wins. Oh tasty natural fruit beverage, if you insist we are the product of an intentional design, then it was aliens and nothing else.

---

TREEhugger101 (2014-06-07 00:01:23)

---

A lot is not one word. I can't believe that such smart people would still make the utterly stupid mistake of writing "alot".
That's all I have to say here.

---

carlos11 (2014-06-07 01:37:44)

---

Unless, Jesus was an alien? It all make sense now.

---

PhantomR (2014-06-07 01:51:57)

---

[SIMG]http://mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/rsz/mlfw1637_medium.jpg[/SIMG]

---

ConnorRonnoc (2014-06-07 22:27:38)

---

@snapapple Neither, it's just the fact that I simply couldn't care less. I just can't be bothered to post a full-blown explanation on Christianity and Evolution. Those things are both centred around the past. Focus on the present. Focus on what's really important.

---

Dimentia (2014-06-09 11:24:06)

---

Stop making me think deep I might go insane

---

little5 (2014-06-09 11:58:58)

---

Nah, it's this wins them all.

---

TREEhugger101 (2014-06-09 17:39:29)

---

No, Fluxer's right. Natural selection is the cause.

Let's say some mice live in a rocky area. The terrain is mostly gray and black. There are some white, brown, and black mice. White and brown are more visible among black rock, while black mice don't get caught.

Soon, there are only black mice, because they breed and make another generation again and again.

---

Junaid (2014-06-09 19:52:34)

---

^

TREEhugger's right. Natural selection can account for the leaf insect's ability to camouflage with the leaf.

Natural selection essentially states that organisms with successive traits will live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes to future generations. This could imply that at one point in the leaf insect's past, it didn't have the ability to blend in with its environment, however, through the randomization of genes, either through the process of sexual reproduction or mutation (or both), the insect managed to obtain the trait. This would cause variety among the leaf insect specie and would also give the individuals with the gene a higher rate of survival. Overtime the other leaf insects would be less successful at being able to survive and will eventually be wiped out leaving new generations to carry the leaf-disguising characteristic.

Something like this is not impossible, especially if you consider the time scale in which the process of evolution has been occurring. (Approx 3 billion years)

"No matter how many millions of years an organism could have been around, you know that mutations and genetic variation couldn't create this design."

You're right about genetic variation being a random process, but evolution itself is not random. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is related to its traits in its environment; it is this process of natural selection that in essence 'chooses' the most successful organism to survive based on what it can do.

---

BlueBlur (2014-06-09 21:43:57)

---

I think you all have misunderstood, he isnt saying natural selection isnt real or all that. He is implying that the evolution is intentional, as in, the organism decides when to change, not nature.

He saying its not really evolution, but merely a change in form

---

ConnorRonnoc (2014-06-09 21:51:06)

---

^ Like... like.... POKEYMANZ

---

carlos11 (2014-06-09 22:53:04)

---

Alright, this is bothering me. Bear in mind that I do not agree with the fruit juice. What bothers me is that none of you understand what he's saying.
Evolution is real, there's proof. Nobody here is arguing against that. Selection is real, and is a key component of the theory of evolution. However, natural selection does not explain everything. There are things we do not understand to this day. There is no explanation as to how new genes are created. Don't say mutations, 'cause I know that's what you're thinking. Mutations make a variation in the genetic code which may or may not be beneficial. But they cannot account for, say, the appearance of limbs, or a brain in ancient organisms.
So, how did natural selection lead to cell differentiation, which allowed us to have brains? (major accomplishment, btw)

Now, I'm not saying there's a bearded guy in a cloud whom it took a while to get the hang of coding DNA for humans, but we've yet to find a logical explanation. This guy probably knows a lot more about biology than most of you, so don't try to prove him wrong with the way you think things work. I'm sure he's not pulling this out of his ass, he goes to a website for agnostics that he has bookmarked in his computer then C&P articles onto here.

---