Tell us what you know about the theory of evolution without using anything but your own brain.

There is no winner. There is just species that haven’t died out it. It’s not a process with a goal, it’s just a process.

Who’s we? Go ask an African about sunburn. You get sunburned easily because your ancestors didn’t have a survival based reason to develop large amounts of melanin.

Again, who’s we? Go ask an Eskimo how much he likes 70 degree temps. Then ask a desert nomad the same thing.

We need cooked food? Are you sure?

What do any of these things have to do with surviving long enough to pass your genes on? You haven’t named any traits that are directly affected by natural selection in humans.

Um, to be blunt, why should we care about your view? You are clearly very ignorant about evolution, and are basing your arguments on this ignorance rather than any actual knowledge. Before you dismiss evolution based on the completely ridiculous idea that we should be eating and enjoying live mice, maybe you should try learning about it and try to find out why this idea is so ridiculous.

OK, maybe you’ll understand this: we are at the “top”, but we share this “top” with everything else alive. We are at the top of our tree, because we have evolved to fit the niche in which we evolved (and our big brains have allowed us to survive in niches for which we didn’t evolve), but a sea slug is at the top of its tree too, as is a nematode worm, and a streptococcus bacterium, a cactus, and a fern - they’re all at the top of their trees too. There is no purpose and no grand scheme to evolution, and no “winner”: it just is. Everything currently alive is in that position because it has failed to die out, and that includes humans.

Yeah, when you don’t have an answer, well science just shouldn’t discuss the issue. Reminds me of your alls steady state theory.

Well I never got anyone to say why they can’t create even a single cell living thing in a lab using what evolution says was in the pond, water, the elements in the table, a nice 70 degree temp, light, etc. Since you all have living cells to reverse engineer, it ought to be a snap to make one.

By the way, an additional evolution question about life. If it “just happens” why can’t you heat a cell till it just barely dies, but is not damaged physically and then go back to the room temperature with food all around it and have it just come back to life? I mean everything is all built so why isn’t it alive again? This assumes the cell is totally dead now, not just in a suspended state. Wouldn’t evolution theory say the cell ought to become alive again?

No offense, but your questions really aren’t all that hard. They’ve all been answered.

But I do wonder about the cooked food thing. I remember starting a thread about nutrition a few years back, and I remember people posting something about that. Basically the idea was that as we developed the ability to create fire, we formed the habit of cooking food, and our digestive systems evolved to sort of depend on that.

Is that not correct?

Why should they? I’m pretty sure white men post-date the discovery of fire, clothing, tents and caves, all of which mean Homo Blanco needn’t do everything under full sunlight.

Sometimes. By this “theory” of yours, there should be no lesser animals at all - why have chimps, monkeys, etc survived?

You know, the rules in the OP only forbid reading other posts BEFORE you make your first one. AFTER you make you first post, it’s perfectly fine to read all the responses. In fact, it might lead to more cogent and reasoned responses on your part.

Exactly.

Predators looking for the weakest animals and environmental conditions sort of “keep track”.

You mean like these guys?

Our brain gives us an evolutionary advantage far superior to any other animal. It is the ability to make tools and other implements to shape and adapt to our environment.
The best way I can describe evolution is this. I don’t need to outrun the bear. I just need to outrun you. IOW, I don’t need to be genetically perfect, just good enough to survive long enough to reproduce.

Once again…

“We” don’t

That’s pretty much the temp in the nice parts of my country all year round.

Can you give us some sort of justification for this “need cooked food” crap?

That is not the process of natural selection. NS says the fittest will survive, not the strongest. And by “fittest”, it means “best adapted”. Point out a more adaptable animal than man, please?

South Africa, where the living is easy.

Because we can get springbok carpaccio now.

Personally, I make them all the time. So do you.

It’s hard to make any sense of this, but are you implying that evolution is some form of ressurection?

No, it wouldn’t. Why would it? (And what has evolutionary theory got to do with the question?)

Evolution doesn’t mean perfection. It just means that generally the things that survive will be fitter, more adapted to their environment, than those that don’t. It doesn’t mean they must be perfectly adapted, or have every ability or skill that they could use; just that they are better adapted than those which died out.

jji, it would because in that dead cell are all the same things that were present when it was alive, and nothing is “keeping track” so it would not know not to be alive again just because it died before in hotter conditions.

Tdn, When you build body cells or even create a baby you always start from living material passing on its life by splitting or combining, a sperm is alive for instance. Lets se you make life out of something not alive, I don’t do that in my body, but evolution says it just happened randomly. So, explain why a dead cell does not return to life if it is otherwise not damaged when the heat is removed? All ingredients for life are in place.

No, that was specified by the OP. If you want a debate, you’re most welcome to open a separate thread in GD. If you wish to interpret this as further evasion, I’ll be delighted to open the thread for you and invite you there.

Nearly everything you have said about evolution in this thread is nonsense. You’re not going to find everyone here running away from the opportunity to debate you on it.

What does that even mean? If you damage the structures and chemicals in a cell beyond repair, it will die. It’s absolutely sweet fanny adams to do with evolution, or abiogenesis, which is what I presume you’re hinting at, which isn’t the same thing as evolution. You need to distinguish the two if you’re going to talk about the subject.

If the heat killed it, it was damaged beyond repair.

Actually, we’re quite close to making cells in a lab. That’s just bioengineering though, and has nothing to do with evidence of evolution.

Again, this is so nonsensical that it can’t even be responded to. I must have missed the “How Evolution Makes Your Steak Come Back to Life” lesson in Biology 101. After saying something this ignorant do you really expect any debate?

You’ve got to be joking? First off a single cell of a living organism is not alive and cannot live on its own so your question is stupid. Secondly, heat destroys protein bonds and major structures of the cell rendering them inoperative, so no, the ingredients of life are not in place.

And none of this crap is in any way posited by evolution. Jeebus. Learn what abiogenisis is, why it has little to do with evolution, then come back with sensible questions.

Response without reading the rest:

Evolution is the physical processes by which changes happen from generation to generation - mutation and recombination. Natural selection is the process by which these changes happen. At least, most people accept that that’s how these changes happen - there are competing theories by Lamarck (who was writing before Darwin) and others.

Natural selection is about survival of the fittest. This means ‘the ones that fit into their environment best,’ not the strongest, fastest ones, though obviously sometimes the strongest, fastest ones often do have advantages.

In other words, the animals that have features which, in comparison to the other creatures around them, enable them to:

Live a long time after sexual maturity

Obtain a mate

Have successful pregnancies

Look after their offspring well (even if that means choosing the best place to drop their clutch of eggs then leave them to their own devices)

… are more likely to be able to pass their genes on to the next generation.

For example, if the animal lives in an environment where the are are bushes that produce fruit all the way from one foot up to twelve foot up, then the animal that can reach a couple of inches higher than the others around it has an advantage. While its fellows are squabbling over the lower branches our tall guy can strecth up to the extra fruit above. This animal is less likely to be killed in a fight over resources and less likely to suffer from starvation or malnutrution.

The reason for the initial differences between these creatures is that, when genes are copied, sometimes mistakes are made. For example, the genes that keep a young animal growing taller might switch off later than they’re ‘supposed’ to (though that’s a gross simplification, of course).

Creatures that produce sexually have another mechanism for evolution: that slightly taller animal might mate with an animal that also has slightly better depth perception, and some of their offspring will end up with both advantages.

Evolution does NOT mean that ‘everything has a purpose.’ Some features of animals are not there because they offer a particular advantage, but because they don’t offer a disadvantage. Other features might be detrimental to an individual because they’re side-effects of a gene (or collection of genes) which can give an advantage. For example, the gene for sickle-cell anaemia, which gets passed on because carriers also have resistance against malaria.

Other traits - like cancer in old age - persist partly because they don’t much affect whether the individual will be able to live a long time after sexual maturity and so on.

It all takes a long, long time. One creature cannot ‘evolve’ into another - it’s something that happens across the generations.

I remember that it had something to do with LSD.

Capeo, it has everything to do with evolution, if you cannot create life from non living elements then the whole theory goes right down the drain because it depends on that and just randomness to do it all.

Oh and of course a single cell can be alive, ever heard of an amoeba? That is the kind of life I want to see you all build, yes you always say it is close. I heard same thing 40 years ago, any day now…yeah. They will be saying that to your grand kids too.

I think when they do totally map DNA they will find there were few mutations, and those died, but rather that what developed was just choices available in the DNA code all the while, designed in other words, maybe triggered to be used by environmental factors.