I'm going to throw tiktaalik into the hat. To quote one article I read:
"Its discovery sheds light on a pivotal point in the history of life on Earth: when the very first fish ventured out onto land."
Remarkable.
I have provided a link that describes its importance more accurately and in greater detail if you wish to discover more.
"I never said Fisher wasn't a proponent of evolution, in fact everyone I cited is a proponent of evolution and I cited them for a reason; because they are known to those who believe evolution and you are likely to discredit a non proponent of evolution as biased."
Missing the point. Show me a reliable source where I can read that Fisher says there is a 'genetic barrier' that prevents speciation. If you make a radical claim like that you need to back it up with evidence, otherwise I have every right to discredit it.
"I never said that Lamarckism is true, I was stating that the example of the elephant is known as Lamarckism which was proven false by another proponent of evolution trying to prove that theory, Weismann."
Thank you for clarifying your position, however you are wrong once again...the elephant example has nothing to do with Lamarckism, it is an example of Darwinism (as I have already stated).
"Again, if the example of the tusks is natural selection then why is it that when Weismann cut of the tails of 901 mice (19 generations worth) the mice continued to grow tails? It's the same scenario."
It is a wholly different scenario! The mice had their tails REMOVED, therefore they DID NOT pass this 'tailless' characteristic on to their offspring as they were originally BORN WITH tails.
The elephants were BORN WITHOUT tusks therefore they DID pass this characteristic on to their offspring. In a world with ivory poachers this characteristic is advantageous to survival and so it is becoming more prevelant.
The former disproves Lamarckism, the latter is an example of Darwinism. They are totally unconnected and do not belong in the same argument.
"So, if you are going to dispute me, A. quote me accurately and B. don't assume that I don't know my sources."
A. I hope this post meets your request?
B. What are your sources? Show me them! Give me a link, a book title, anything. Otherwise you are allowing me to draw whatever assumptions I want.
I'm sorry but you're so very, very wrong.
To start with, if you're going to make wild claims like 'there is a genetic barrier that cannot be bridged' and this idea was supported by R.A. Fisher (a well-known proponent of evolution) you should, in the very least, cite a reliable source.
Secondly, you make a massively contradictory statement where you claim that the elephant case is an example of 'Lamarckism', but then go on to say that 'Lamarckism' is false? Both cannot be true, if 'Lamarckism' is false (which it is), then there must be another explanation for this phenomenon.
The elephant example is quite clearly natural selection. Male elephants BORN without tusks (which would normally put them at a biological disadvantage) are now more likely to pass on their genes as the males with tusks are being killed by poachers. In turn this produces more tusk less males (who will also be more likely to escape poachers and pass on their genes). It is not a case where animals who have had their tusks removed are passing on their genes and creating tusk less offspring (they have been killed by poachers after all).
I think "1984" by George Orwell is an essential read for anyone interested in Politics, especially the dangers of politics. Others I would recommend:
"Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine
"Redemption" by Stanley 'Tookie' Willaims
"The Art of War" by Sun-Tzu
"The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli
"The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama
"To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee
"A Million Little Pieces" is a great example of why books are, and always will be, relevant. It is a fantastic story with interesting characters, but it also connects with the reader on a much deeper level than pure entertainment. You can read a book and it can inspire you to change your life, it's not often other forms of media have that effect.
I have to say Charles Darwin. Evolution answers that age old question 'where did we come from?' It was such a radical idea at the time, and it took a lot of guts from Darwin to fly in the face of the church. There is a mountain of evidence to support the theory such as fossils, homologies, genetics and selective breeding. It is both beautiful and brilliant.
This has been demonstrated with selective breeding for centuries. When you think that almost all domestic dogs have originated from the wolf, and how much variety there is in the species, it's not hard to imagine it happening in the wild over a slower period of time.
As a Brit I'm going to have to say Steve Redgrave. He won Gold medals at 5 consecutive Olympics in Rowing, one of the most grueling sports out there. To maintain such a high performance level for 20 years is remarkable.
I know it came in for a lot of criticism in the States but I would highly recommend James Frey's A Million Little Pieces. Other personal favourites include:
1984 by George Orwell
Choke by Chuck Palahniuk
Redemption by Stanley 'Tookie' Wiliams
The Art of War by Sun-Tzu
They're all quite dark in their subject matter: Drug addiction, totalitarianism, sexual addiction, gang culture, war etc. But if you're looking to challenge, yourself and your intellect, pick them up!
When in sexual arousal the body releases phenylethylamines, these produce the feeling of love. Love can easily be explained by science through biology and chemistry, that might sound cold, but I don't believe it makes it any less beautiful.
