By the way number 2: The theory of evolution is the most biased name for natural selection. "Theory of tradition" would have been a better name by far. Since practically 100% of the traits are inherited from generation to generation
"Theory of evolution" is not only biased, but ideologically biased to hide this fact 2015-03-19 15:29 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]>: > good or bad for what circunstances and for what unit of evolution in what > amount of time? . If I say "sexual reproduction is bad, because, mitosis is > a delicate process that may fail and produce many problems. cloning is > better because it is simpler. therefore natural selection do it wrong" > > obviously that is the simplistic reasoning of an ignorant. The correct > scientific attitude is to keep studying why sexual reproduction is worth > for natural selection. And this is also an open question. > > In the same way a design , like natural selection or the eye is something > for which particular circunstances can not reverse it. For example if an > specie live in an ambient with a lot of radiation, it may be true that > cloning would be the best way to reproduce for a million year (until the > species get extinct due to other effects) but this does not mean that > sexual reproduction is wrong in any way. It should be better to develop > some secundary defenses against mutations, and when the species ambient > change, It can continue enjoying the advantages of sexual reproduction. > > > In the same way, that when some specie becomes nocturnal for some million > years, maybe the eye of the octopus would have been nicer in that > circunstances . So what? if this is good for most of their genera and for > most of the existence of that clade? > > Moreover, the vertebrate eye is able to move better (think it the eye of > the chameleon) and thus to focus and point better with less sensitive cells. > > By the way I have to go to work. Look I don´t develop wings!. How much > better would have been t fly to my work. Thar proves that natural > selection do it wrong. > > > 2015-03-19 4:51 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > >> On 3/18/2015 5:08 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and >>> now the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science! >>> >>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of- >>> our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled >>> >> >> I don't think you need to rush to change your examples just yet. This >> sounds more like development of the glial cells to compensate for the >> initial bad design that put the receptors on the back side of the retina. >> The authors say it helps color vision during the day without hurting night >> (non-color) vision too much. But many vertebrates don't even have color >> vision. Are their eyes wired the other way around...No. Do they have the >> same glial cell disposition? And if the color receptors were in on the >> front side of the retina then they wouldn't need sequences of glial cells >> to guide the photons to them. >> >> Brent >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
