Darwin's fundamental error.
True!
Side Score: 2
|
 |
Truer than true.
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin was wrong, it's not the one who can adapt best to their environment who will survive it is rather the one who can manipulate their environment to adapt to their needs that will survive. The human will sooner survive over the tiger both in the jungle and out of it. The shark takes any region of the sea and makes it their region. The weaker species do, as Darwin suggests, kill off those who can't adapt to the new environment but that is a side effect of having lost the original battle over the most ADAPTABLE ENVIRONMENT! SLIGHTLY incorrect. Darwin's work was not only about species that adapt and survive. The true insight was that species evolve, and better survive through what he termed "natural selection". This process involves the nature of genetic reproduction. Continuous change takes place in every iteration. No two are identical. Some of these changes are tiny yet significant mutations to the genetic makeup of individuals. Many of these mutations are replicated in each successive reproduction The changes that best suit the existing environment are best able to survive. Consequently more members of a particular species bearing a successful change that better suits the environment, tend to survive and increase their numbers relative to individuals without that change. Many species can manipulate their environment from ants to birds to humans. This alone is not a part of Darwin's theory. Side: True!
|
What the hell kind of debate is this? You don't even provide an option for an opposing viepoint to your opinion. LOL--instead oyu just offer "true" or 'truer." You and your tactics like this would not survive one minute in science, where I work. Also, you are dead wrong. Darwin was NT wrong. You are merely taking his original theories of the advantages of selective inheritances of a species, and then twisting the words that describe the results. Darwin correctly discovered that the selective inheritance of random genetic mutations that prove to be beneficial enable the given species to thrive in its environment. And thus, produce more offspring with the same mutation. Thus, in time, dominating until only the species that were lucky enough to be imbued with this mutation are left. Thus, what was once the aberrations and the exception becomes the norm. You just twisted all this, doing NO WORK on your own or coming up with any original ideas. You used the word "manipulate" instead of control or thrive in an environment. And so you say that you are right and Darwin was wrong. You are wrong. The word manipulate is inaccurate. When one manipulates something, they change it to accommodate their desires. But sharks don't really manipulate the ocean, do they? Do they change the water temperature? The salt content of the ocean? The tides? The geography of the ocean floor? The types of other species in the water? LOL...No. they do not. Instead, thanks to the selective inheritance of a random genetic mutation, they evolved to the point to where they became a dominant species. Just as Darwin said. Ouch. I know I came down on you pretty hard, here. And you probably did not expect a scientist to be here to shoot you down. But since I have debated with peer-reviewed science essays and hypotheses many times, it rankles me to see somebody try to skew this process and instead proffer erroneous ideas, without having the courage to accept and opposing opinions. Side: Truer than true.
|
